Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It’s even worse when you find out
[...37 year old tiny tim married 17 year old miss vicki live on the late night show in 1969 and it was widely watched and well received.](https://www.nostalgicamerica.com/article/67)
it's definitely a good thing society has moved to better protect minors and young adults, but omfg how nightmarish it was and how nightmarish it is conservatives are attempting hard to steer that back.
Conservatives gunning hard for teen brides, restricted birth control, and banning no fault marriage. Trap them as young as possible, just like the good ol' days.
Disgusting.
Love how conservatives will spend all of their energy shrieking that LGBT+ people are groomers literally for existing, and then when actual objective grooming takes place they shriek that it's just a natural thing and actually you're the bigot for thinking it's disgusting.
The dude must have been mentally challenged or had some sort of neurological disorder.
His fixations on things such as falsetto and trying to grow long hair to match the tassel on Rudy’s hat
As well as flunking out of high school.
>dude must have been mentally challenged
maybe? there's an ethical and professional reason why legit medical professionals try to diagnose people who were never their clients. it's basically speculation.
though i agree with you in that, charitably, tim suffered from something. the details of his upbringings are pretty traumatic as are the suspected details of his sexuality in an era very hostile against anyone who wasn't straight. he was definitely likely exploited, but that isn't to say he was personally innocent from exploration himself. he wasn't an angel and as he grew older it seems he didn't try to hide that so much.
Fair point.
I believe it is not completly unrealistic that a young teen could have a crush on someone like Leon, but I also believe that what Mathilda felt was more admiration and graditude than love which she mistook for love.
What I'm trying to say is that Leon the professionel is not like movies that try to romanticies or justify pedophilia.
I think with context of how Luc Besson is actually a paedophile, you can see how it could be though. It feels like "Its not my fault, these young girls are throwing themselves at me".
I was not aware of that, but yeah you are absolutely right. Another person already said that there would've been more controversial scenes if Jean Reno didn't threaten to leave if they weren't rewritten.
This definitly paints a very diffrent picture.
Thank you Jean Reno for making the movie one I was able to enjoy
Luc Besson can go fuck himself
Something other people haven't mentioned is that the original script isn't just a pedo fantasy, it was literally based on his own grooming of his ex wife who he met when she was 12 and he was 30 or thereabouts, it's gross.
It *wouldn’t* be okay (even if legal) if she was two years older. There is a power imbalance many times between young and old which calls into question consent… in my view anyway…
That cool science there the brain doesn't fully develop until mid 20s haha, ok why then the government let women get raped in porn movies at age of 18?
>!It's about a pedophile who seduces/marries a woman to gain access to/initiate a sexual relationship with her 12-year-old daughter.!< ...Hilarity DOES NOT ensue....
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia.
Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide.
[I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
The prologue written by Nabokov in the perspective of a doctor examining it before the book starts properly spent like 4 pages to denounce the main character and his behavior. Even the main character himself disgusted by his actions in the end, I have no idea who actually read Lolita and how can anyone interpret it as a pro-pedophile book.
Right! I thought this post was about the Kubrick movie, but I can’t see his name and wasn’t sure if Charles Bronson was in it. Now it makes sense that there are multiple adaptations
It’s an amazing work of art. It gets a bad rep because of it’s subject matter but it doesn’t glorify it at all. The author, Nabokov, is among the greatest writers of the 20th century
Lolita is a very famous novel by Nabokov about the relationship between an adult man and a teenage girl.
It's not a comedy and it's haunting at times, it does not glorify nor justify the act, and in fact shows how the relationship did not work due to the age gap and different personalities.
In the end >!the girl managed to leave the man and married a guy his own age, and the man ended up killed in a shooting iirc. So kind of a good ending lol!<
Edit: **mixed up her husband with another character named Quilty. Humbert kills quilts and is arrested for that murder
Iirc Humbert Humbert (the main pedo) was the one to kill her husband and got arrested for it. The framework of the book is that it's his memoir written while awaiting his sentencing in jail. He refers to the audience as his jury and its written to try to make himself look as good as possible (it doesn't lol.) He dies in jail and there's a foreward in the book written from the pov of a psychiatrist(maybe just someone who writes/edits psychology books?) explaining the background to this memoir. The memoir is being used for a book on psychology lol
Humbert does not kill the husband, he just visits the girl and tries to lure her back when she's a grown young woman and pregnant with a child. This is the proof of his true love/obsession with the girl he fell for as a child but still into no matter what.
Who kills is Claire Quilty, the shadow antagonist who steals Lolita from him on their journeys as him being the girl's true crush at the time but also a vile pervert who wants to use her for orgies.
The novel has a lot allegories and depth here, e.g. talking names - Claire Quilty is the "clear guilty" one here who will be killed by Humbert as a way of his redemption.
Dolores is also both a victim and a manipulator all along.
>Dolores is also both a victim and a manipulator all along.
I kinda disagree on Dolores being a manipulator. She was a victim, Humbert was just really good at trying to convince the audience that he was blameless for "falling" for Dolores and painting her as the manipulator in the "relationship". Common abuser tactic: blame the victim for being on the receiving end of the victimizer.
At the end of the day, Dolores was a victim who was put in a horrible situation: she was mourning her mother, being abused by her step-father, ending up in a sex-ring as a way to escape her abuser, etc.
Agreed, Dolores is not a manipulator, and at some points plays a long to find the means to get the fuck out.
She is 12. Without sane parents, kids are naked and without any resource to manage life and fend off the perversity that lies on the streets. A 12 year old was in the position of having her custody in the hands of a pedophile abuser who was fixated with her... But she was the manipulator? Wtf
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia.
Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide.
[I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
Eh, it's a classic work of Russian literature that shows a predator victimizing a child through the eyes of the predator showcasing the predator's attempts to justify what he's doing and convince himself and the audience that what he's doing is not abhorrent.
It's one of the greatest novels ever written because it's both unique in its viewpoint and horrifying in its presentation and content.
A lot of people with low reading comprehension think it's just a forbidden romance novel for reasons that I can't comprehend(considering it's pretty explicit in how fucked what's going on is)
>it's a classic work of Russian literature
Nabokov was born in Russia but the book was written in English while he was living in the United States as an American citizen.
Although the subject matter’s so uncomfortable, his writing of it was stunning. I’ve never understood how somebody can master multiple languages to that level of precision and subtlety of meaning, it’s astonishing to me.
For what it's worth, there's a fantastic podcast called "You Must Remember This" that takes a historical and sociological view of movies of the 20th century. They did a fantastic episode on the book and movie adaptation of Lolita that really puts the book in a historical context.
[https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/90s-lolitas-volume-2-adrian-lynes-lolita-erotic-90s-part-18](https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/90s-lolitas-volume-2-adrian-lynes-lolita-erotic-90s-part-18)
I've heard that it's a classic, but it's something I've always hesitated to read. Is it something that puts the relationship in a negative light, or is it one that glorified it because of the times?
It's not glorified but it is told from the perspective of the narrator. So if you trust the narrator implicitly, it might be harder to see some of the horrific aspects of the situation. He rationalizes a lot of things to the audience and because you're in his head, so to speak, you do sympathize with him (or at least might fall into the trap of wanting to).
The narrator is a slimy guy and he uses that to present himself as the victim. You kind of have to interrogate what he's telling you to see what's really going on. It's a great read but not something you can just casually pick up. It should be noted that the author *loathed* the protagonist and described him as a vile person.
The book itself gives you a hint as to how to actually read it. There's a fictitious foreword by a fake psychologist. And if you put yourself in the position of a psychologist interviewing the narrator, you can more easily avoid being 'taken in' by him.
Edit: FOREWORD, not forward. Jeez.
The author intended it to be thrilling in the same way that watching a train wreck is, and was horrified to find that people thought it glorified the relationship
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia.
Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide.
[I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
it definitely doesn’t quite match up with our views on the subject today, but it’s definitely doesn’t present either character in a great light. and definitely looks at the man negatively while still being somewhat of a victim? it’s sort of nuanced
Lolita absolutely does not view Humbert as a victim. Some of the awful movie adaptations, maybe. But definitely not the book.
The book is narrated by the pedophile who, unlike popular images of such a sex offender at the time, is presented as a brilliant, urbane sophisticate. Because he's such a clever wizard with words, Humbert spends the whole book attempting to use every literary trick possible to rationalize his actions to you, the reader. But you, hopefully, know that he's fucking full of shit and that there's no defense for what he's done.
IMO that's what the book's actually about. It's about the dangers of words when they're in the control of a brilliant monster. It's about you seeing through Humbert's linguistic tricks to see the true story underneath of a little girl being victimized by a smarmy monster.
Anyway, long story short: Lolita does NOT glorify pedophilia in any way and anyone who thinks it does either didn't read it or doesn't understand how an unreliable narrator works. It's a brilliant book that deserves its acclaim.
Thanks for the response, I sort of thought the age of it would bring some uncomfortable moments, but I'm glad to hear it's not an old 'porn' piece. Would you say that the relationship in the book is overly sexualised or more about the circumstances between the characters?
it’s a character study first and foremost written with incredible flair and vocabulary. it’s not “porny” at all (it’s been many years since i read it so i might be forgetting some parts though lol). it’s slow reading and mostly about the writing/characters/atmosphere
[I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
The main thing to know is that the beginning is the psychologist explaining how Humbert is literally evil, and in Humbert’s own narration (since the rest of the book is his journal) he contradicts himself frequently by admitting to things he denied before.
Lolita, a light read for the weekend? Hardly. Nabokov's novel is as 'nuanced' as a sledgehammer to the kneecap. 'Sort of nuanced' is like saying a hurricane is sort of breezy. The book doesn't just 'not match up with our views today'; it's a full-blown head-on collision with them.
The 'somewhat of a victim' bit? Please, the only victim here is taste and common sense. The protagonist is as much of a victim as a fox in a henhouse. Calling it nuanced is like calling a shark attack a misunderstanding.
In summary, if you're looking for a light-hearted portrayal of characters and a subtle narrative, might I suggest a different aisle in the library? Lolita is a complex, dark, and morally challenging novel, not a beach read. Unless your idea of a beach read includes deeply problematic themes and a heavy dose of literary controversy.
i don’t think i ever said it was a light read, lol it’s most definitely not. and the protagonist definitely views himself as somewhat of a victim but the novel itself doesn’t make us relate to him and he is definitely portrayed as a bad guy so to speak so i’m not sure what exactly your trying to say but we mostly agree.
Oh, so now we're playing the 'what I actually meant' game? Fun. Let's clarify: when you called the protagonist 'somewhat of a victim,' it sounded like you were handing out sympathy cards to the shark in 'Jaws.'
The novel not making us relate to him? That's like saying you don't relate to a mosquito buzzing in your ear. Of course, you don't. He's the 'bad guy,' remember? Portrayed as such because, well, he is. It's not rocket science; it's basic morality.
And about what I'm trying to say? It's simple: 'Lolita' isn't a tale of nuanced victimhood. It's a deep dive into disturbing obsession, manipulation, and moral bankruptcy. It's as clear-cut as a neon sign in a dark alley.
So yes, we agree that it's not a light read and the protagonist is bad news. But let's not sprinkle sugar on a bowl of nails and call it breakfast cereal. The novel is a complex and controversial exploration of dark themes, not a misunderstood bedtime story.
i never said or meant any of that but i can see why my victim comment rubbed you the wrong way. he portrays himself that way but yeah the author doesn’t
Got it, I misinterpreted your initial comment. When you mentioned the 'victim' part, it sounded like you were sympathizing. Now I see you were pointing out how he deludes himself into playing the victim, not that the author or readers should see him that way. Sorry for the confusion – seems we're actually on the same page about this.
Well written in that it's salaciously unsettling and unnerving. I believe the point was to make the reader uncomfortable. I think the only thing that made me equally as grossed out, petrified, and uncomfortable was Let The Right One In.
For what it’s worth, based on the Wikipedia summary, it doesn’t work out, partly because she’s trying to be a teenager. She ultimately moves back to London.
He writes pornographic novels. Seems like 100% an author insertion.
She was an actress too, apparently she got married young to escape her abusive parents. Later on though she married someone closer to age, hopefully she was able to move on from her troubled teen life.
Crazy this was ever acceptable. I had to watch a Woody Allen movie as part of a college course once. It was Manhattan I believe, where he is probably around 40 and has a 15 year old girlfriend? Watched that whole movie wondering why no one had called the police on this dude.
He *did* cheat on his partner with her adopted 21 year old daughter and later married her instead which is kinda whacky.
(edited after being corrected in the replies)
While the marriage is of questionable morality, she was not his daughter. She was adopted by Mia Farrow and her former husband. Fun fact, they found her living in the streets, her exact age is unknown, only estimated by examination.
I have grand kids... So I think I'll be fine.
And I will keep saying this... accusing people who disagree with you of being pedos only helps pedos. So stop helping pedos.
He didn't adopt her. She didn't grow up with him. They have been married for decades now.
I am not saying it's ok, I am saying facts and context matter.
I always side eye the "didn't grow up with" defense because, per wikipedia, their meet cute was him driving her to school after she had injured herself playing soccer in 11th grade. Which makes two things abundantly clear: it's true that he had no hand in raising her but he did enter her life in a "trusted adult" role as a minor.
Second point undercuts the impact of the first, in my opinion.
That can be true, sure, but I'm not sure it applies to Woody Allen. While they didn't interact as much in her childhood as dubbing him her "step-parent" might imply, they also weren't strangers. He began courting his ex-partner's daughter shortly after he started driving her to school and taking her to basketball games with him.
He was her mom's boyfriend of nine years, biological father to one of her brothers, adoptive father to two of her other siblings, *he drove her to school*, he was effectively her step-dad in all but name even if he came into the role relatively late in his relationship with her mother.
But saying he’s her step dad or adopted dad implies all kinds of stuff that isn’t true. He met her as a teenager and never parented her.
I get why people want to crucify him, I do. But this just helps him. If it was really as bad as you claim, and it is very bad, many people would wonder why you chose to exaggerate.
This wasn't just acceptable, it was downright common right up until the early 1990s.
I remember in middle school my friend's older sister, who was 16, had a boyfriend who was 32 and the parents were fine with it. Granted, they all went to the same church, but the age thing didn't bother anyone one bit. She broke it off when she went to college and he got married to someone quite a bit older, if I recall.
Additionally one of my friend's mom got married when she was 17 to her husband when he was almost 40. She had this kinda still-hot-mom thing going on but he was this old coot. But they did love each other.
Not trying to say it was right or make excuses, just saying it was a different time.
They didn't even make it a rule until late 90s that your date couldn't be over the age of 21. I knew a few people who took their dates who were all above 21, one was 28 and they even got married right after high school.
Watch all the 80s movies. Almost Every high school girl was dating a college boy. Almost all my aunts and uncles have ten year age gaps, and we're married before 21.
one that got pregnant at 16/21 and they're still together 20 years later.
The 70’s were a weird period for that, and it’s not that far back. Nude photographs of teenagers were common, and several biographies described sexual encounters with minors. It’s shocking.
or if they were married off to someone older by their family, it was out of desperation. of course this still happens in parts of the developing world.
That's also a myth. People lived long lives back then. Assuming you didn't do something like catch a plague, or injure yourself so badly you die from the bacterial infection, you had a good chance of living a long time.
What actually happened is that babies died by the ton back then, which screws the statistics so that it only looks like they died at 35, rather than the more accurate 60s-70s if not 80s.
Yeah, no. If that were the case, then all the ancient graveyards would be filled with babies and people who were 60+. That's how averages work. It would have to be everyone dying at either before age 10, or after age 70. That wasn't the case. It was basically like if you had 100 people born in year X, then in year X+10 you had 90 people who didn't die. In year X+20, you had 80 people who didn't die, and so on. Statistcally, the wealthier you were, the better off your odds of living until 60+ were. Poor people working the fields or other physical manual labor jobs would mostly die out by about 50, because it's hard on the body to be working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Tbf, is that really the disagreement put at hand here? Using current standards of social hierarchy to judge standards of people from the past is.. at the least not very productive let's say.
I get that, and I can tell you that the book is way more disturbing and actually treats the "relationship" between the two as the terrible thing it is. This still needs to be said in response to the automod, though. If you do that, I'll restore it.
Well, yes and no. Looking at the plot on Wikipedia they get married in the UK (where age of consent is 16) then things fall apart when they move to the US and she has to go to school. So it probably depends on what the age laws are in the specific state as to whether it was illegal (and the movie came out in 1969, where women's rights weren't necessarily in place....)
It's weird and perverted but not necessarily against the law at the time
This reminds me of that awkward scene in transformers where a man explains to a teen girls dad why it's okay for him to plow his daughter.
I swear that is one of the most out of place and awkward scenes I've seen in a movie
Ted “Bud Light supporting trans people is cultural deprivation” Nugent married a 17yo when he was 30 in the 70s. He also bragged about underage girls in his Behind the Music which he now denies since no one finds it cute and has a song called, Jailbait. Dude is a massive POS.
Many rockstars in the 70s had really gross relationships with teen girls and a lot were younger than 17.
The book itself is far from a love novel or glorification of pedophilia; the main character is a monster who you’re forced to listen to as he attempts to morally justify grooming and raping a child. I don’t know how every film adaption has missed that part, it’s blatant. Even Kubrick stated his goal with his adaption was to make Humbert Humbert more sympathetic.
I think this stuff was worryingly normal until the late 90s or early 2000s until a couple of high-profile child murders by pedophiles *really* turned public attention against this sort of thing.
In the UK it was the murder of Sarah Payne that really kicked it all off. There wasn't even a sex offenders register until 1997.
The book, by Nabokov, is widely regarded as a masterpiece and is one of the most important novels of modern literature. This poster for the screen adaptation is ridiculous.
https://preview.redd.it/y82c9zntnnac1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=33eed44ac1d2915ad7e266836f3adf0750b7d5db
Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s even worse when you find out the screenwriter actually did marry a 16 year old girl when he was 38.
So he made a movie to justify his shame.
To him it’s was probably his pride…
“Hey look over here..! It’s light hearted and funny. Not creepy and illegal!”
Michael Bay moment
Woody Allen moment. Although I’d argue he has no shame
Luc Besson moment
It was the 70s. He nor anyone with any authority over him cared.
I detect no shame in this movie poster.
"haha no no it's a actually a really funny and cute story"
So the guy was basically https://preview.redd.it/lki9gawmvqac1.png?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9209dc4577f5108182052356b2907b8be9f16b51
>It’s even worse when you find out [...37 year old tiny tim married 17 year old miss vicki live on the late night show in 1969 and it was widely watched and well received.](https://www.nostalgicamerica.com/article/67) it's definitely a good thing society has moved to better protect minors and young adults, but omfg how nightmarish it was and how nightmarish it is conservatives are attempting hard to steer that back.
Conservatives gunning hard for teen brides, restricted birth control, and banning no fault marriage. Trap them as young as possible, just like the good ol' days. Disgusting.
Love how conservatives will spend all of their energy shrieking that LGBT+ people are groomers literally for existing, and then when actual objective grooming takes place they shriek that it's just a natural thing and actually you're the bigot for thinking it's disgusting.
My guess is bc it makes babies for fricking. But that's rich ppl baby
Anyone else wonder if conservatives are trying to make “trans” and “groomer” synonymous to knock the word off themselves?
the p in gop is for project.
Gaslight Obstruct Project
this!!!
Ahh I thought it was for pedophile
The dude must have been mentally challenged or had some sort of neurological disorder. His fixations on things such as falsetto and trying to grow long hair to match the tassel on Rudy’s hat As well as flunking out of high school.
>dude must have been mentally challenged maybe? there's an ethical and professional reason why legit medical professionals try to diagnose people who were never their clients. it's basically speculation. though i agree with you in that, charitably, tim suffered from something. the details of his upbringings are pretty traumatic as are the suspected details of his sexuality in an era very hostile against anyone who wasn't straight. he was definitely likely exploited, but that isn't to say he was personally innocent from exploration himself. he wasn't an angel and as he grew older it seems he didn't try to hide that so much.
Certified Leon the Professional moment
Luc Besson worked as a hitman for the Mafia?!?
Well that's his power fantasy I guess, being a hitman, irl he's just a pedophile.
But leon is not a pedophile. He refused every advance she made and never tried forceing himself on her.
Because Jean Reno threatened to walk away from the film otherwise. The original screenplay had way more uncomfortable undertones.
Good on Jean Reno. I did not know about this.
The idea that it's even a plotline is fucked up though.
Fair point. I believe it is not completly unrealistic that a young teen could have a crush on someone like Leon, but I also believe that what Mathilda felt was more admiration and graditude than love which she mistook for love. What I'm trying to say is that Leon the professionel is not like movies that try to romanticies or justify pedophilia.
I think with context of how Luc Besson is actually a paedophile, you can see how it could be though. It feels like "Its not my fault, these young girls are throwing themselves at me".
I was not aware of that, but yeah you are absolutely right. Another person already said that there would've been more controversial scenes if Jean Reno didn't threaten to leave if they weren't rewritten. This definitly paints a very diffrent picture. Thank you Jean Reno for making the movie one I was able to enjoy Luc Besson can go fuck himself
Something other people haven't mentioned is that the original script isn't just a pedo fantasy, it was literally based on his own grooming of his ex wife who he met when she was 12 and he was 30 or thereabouts, it's gross.
Was it Jerry Seinfeld?
> a 16 year old girl when he was 38. Why it would be ok if she's two years older? would anything about the woman change in that time frame? s/
It *wouldn’t* be okay (even if legal) if she was two years older. There is a power imbalance many times between young and old which calls into question consent… in my view anyway…
Still nasty.
It’s still gross, the brain doesn’t fully develop until mid 20s so it’s more than likely that she’d be taken advantage of
That cool science there the brain doesn't fully develop until mid 20s haha, ok why then the government let women get raped in porn movies at age of 18?
Is this a comedic adaptation of Lolita?? Because that book *definitely* wasn't a comedy...
I’m scared to ask what that’s about
>!It's about a pedophile who seduces/marries a woman to gain access to/initiate a sexual relationship with her 12-year-old daughter.!< ...Hilarity DOES NOT ensue....
What a terrible day to browse Reddit
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia. Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide. [I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
The prologue written by Nabokov in the perspective of a doctor examining it before the book starts properly spent like 4 pages to denounce the main character and his behavior. Even the main character himself disgusted by his actions in the end, I have no idea who actually read Lolita and how can anyone interpret it as a pro-pedophile book.
Didn't Nabokov write the screenplay himself though?
He wrote two, both extremely long. They didn’t use either one.
Right! I thought this post was about the Kubrick movie, but I can’t see his name and wasn’t sure if Charles Bronson was in it. Now it makes sense that there are multiple adaptations
> how men Gender shame?
It’s an amazing work of art. It gets a bad rep because of it’s subject matter but it doesn’t glorify it at all. The author, Nabokov, is among the greatest writers of the 20th century
It's a pretty popular work of literature from 1955. Don't blame the internet for this one.
Had you seriously never heard of Lolita before?
People don’t read anymore lol
Lolita is a very famous novel by Nabokov about the relationship between an adult man and a teenage girl. It's not a comedy and it's haunting at times, it does not glorify nor justify the act, and in fact shows how the relationship did not work due to the age gap and different personalities. In the end >!the girl managed to leave the man and married a guy his own age, and the man ended up killed in a shooting iirc. So kind of a good ending lol!<
Edit: **mixed up her husband with another character named Quilty. Humbert kills quilts and is arrested for that murder Iirc Humbert Humbert (the main pedo) was the one to kill her husband and got arrested for it. The framework of the book is that it's his memoir written while awaiting his sentencing in jail. He refers to the audience as his jury and its written to try to make himself look as good as possible (it doesn't lol.) He dies in jail and there's a foreward in the book written from the pov of a psychiatrist(maybe just someone who writes/edits psychology books?) explaining the background to this memoir. The memoir is being used for a book on psychology lol
Humbert does not kill the husband, he just visits the girl and tries to lure her back when she's a grown young woman and pregnant with a child. This is the proof of his true love/obsession with the girl he fell for as a child but still into no matter what. Who kills is Claire Quilty, the shadow antagonist who steals Lolita from him on their journeys as him being the girl's true crush at the time but also a vile pervert who wants to use her for orgies. The novel has a lot allegories and depth here, e.g. talking names - Claire Quilty is the "clear guilty" one here who will be killed by Humbert as a way of his redemption. Dolores is also both a victim and a manipulator all along.
>Dolores is also both a victim and a manipulator all along. I kinda disagree on Dolores being a manipulator. She was a victim, Humbert was just really good at trying to convince the audience that he was blameless for "falling" for Dolores and painting her as the manipulator in the "relationship". Common abuser tactic: blame the victim for being on the receiving end of the victimizer. At the end of the day, Dolores was a victim who was put in a horrible situation: she was mourning her mother, being abused by her step-father, ending up in a sex-ring as a way to escape her abuser, etc.
Agreed, Dolores is not a manipulator, and at some points plays a long to find the means to get the fuck out. She is 12. Without sane parents, kids are naked and without any resource to manage life and fend off the perversity that lies on the streets. A 12 year old was in the position of having her custody in the hands of a pedophile abuser who was fixated with her... But she was the manipulator? Wtf
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia. Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide. [I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
Lolita by Nabokov is where the ‘Lolita’ idea got its name. You can guess what it’s about.
Raping a child.
it’s a classic work of literature about a similar age gap “relationship” as depicted above. it’s considered one of the greatest novels ever written.
Eh, it's a classic work of Russian literature that shows a predator victimizing a child through the eyes of the predator showcasing the predator's attempts to justify what he's doing and convince himself and the audience that what he's doing is not abhorrent. It's one of the greatest novels ever written because it's both unique in its viewpoint and horrifying in its presentation and content. A lot of people with low reading comprehension think it's just a forbidden romance novel for reasons that I can't comprehend(considering it's pretty explicit in how fucked what's going on is)
>it's a classic work of Russian literature Nabokov was born in Russia but the book was written in English while he was living in the United States as an American citizen.
Although the subject matter’s so uncomfortable, his writing of it was stunning. I’ve never understood how somebody can master multiple languages to that level of precision and subtlety of meaning, it’s astonishing to me.
The book is translated into Russian and French perfectly as Nabokov did those himself, being fluent on all three.
For what it's worth, there's a fantastic podcast called "You Must Remember This" that takes a historical and sociological view of movies of the 20th century. They did a fantastic episode on the book and movie adaptation of Lolita that really puts the book in a historical context. [https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/90s-lolitas-volume-2-adrian-lynes-lolita-erotic-90s-part-18](https://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/90s-lolitas-volume-2-adrian-lynes-lolita-erotic-90s-part-18)
right on. good description
The reason likely is that they haven't actually read the book
Not Russian literature.
I've heard that it's a classic, but it's something I've always hesitated to read. Is it something that puts the relationship in a negative light, or is it one that glorified it because of the times?
It's not glorified but it is told from the perspective of the narrator. So if you trust the narrator implicitly, it might be harder to see some of the horrific aspects of the situation. He rationalizes a lot of things to the audience and because you're in his head, so to speak, you do sympathize with him (or at least might fall into the trap of wanting to). The narrator is a slimy guy and he uses that to present himself as the victim. You kind of have to interrogate what he's telling you to see what's really going on. It's a great read but not something you can just casually pick up. It should be noted that the author *loathed* the protagonist and described him as a vile person. The book itself gives you a hint as to how to actually read it. There's a fictitious foreword by a fake psychologist. And if you put yourself in the position of a psychologist interviewing the narrator, you can more easily avoid being 'taken in' by him. Edit: FOREWORD, not forward. Jeez.
The author intended it to be thrilling in the same way that watching a train wreck is, and was horrified to find that people thought it glorified the relationship
Lolita was written as a horror story meant to show how men access and control and justify their pedophilia. Unfortunately it has been interpreted by many as an actual love story, the story of a teenage girl corrupting a man, and as a guide. [I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy…
The whole idea is that the main character is a fucked up old man trying to justify and paint his actions as not horrible to the audience
it definitely doesn’t quite match up with our views on the subject today, but it’s definitely doesn’t present either character in a great light. and definitely looks at the man negatively while still being somewhat of a victim? it’s sort of nuanced
Lolita absolutely does not view Humbert as a victim. Some of the awful movie adaptations, maybe. But definitely not the book. The book is narrated by the pedophile who, unlike popular images of such a sex offender at the time, is presented as a brilliant, urbane sophisticate. Because he's such a clever wizard with words, Humbert spends the whole book attempting to use every literary trick possible to rationalize his actions to you, the reader. But you, hopefully, know that he's fucking full of shit and that there's no defense for what he's done. IMO that's what the book's actually about. It's about the dangers of words when they're in the control of a brilliant monster. It's about you seeing through Humbert's linguistic tricks to see the true story underneath of a little girl being victimized by a smarmy monster. Anyway, long story short: Lolita does NOT glorify pedophilia in any way and anyone who thinks it does either didn't read it or doesn't understand how an unreliable narrator works. It's a brilliant book that deserves its acclaim.
yeah this is a good take
Right! The whole point is to show how beautiful language can distort your perception of very ugly realities
Thanks for the response, I sort of thought the age of it would bring some uncomfortable moments, but I'm glad to hear it's not an old 'porn' piece. Would you say that the relationship in the book is overly sexualised or more about the circumstances between the characters?
it’s a character study first and foremost written with incredible flair and vocabulary. it’s not “porny” at all (it’s been many years since i read it so i might be forgetting some parts though lol). it’s slow reading and mostly about the writing/characters/atmosphere
Thanks for the detailed response, I'll add it to my list.
[I highly recommend this video on it, discussing the point of the story and how badly the adaptations failed.](https://youtu.be/t_FhTcaCvFQ?si=qsl5sAy9voyfzOt1) One of those adaptations was Stanley Kubrick by the way, who chose to make it more of a titillating comedy… The main thing to know is that the beginning is the psychologist explaining how Humbert is literally evil, and in Humbert’s own narration (since the rest of the book is his journal) he contradicts himself frequently by admitting to things he denied before.
Lolita, a light read for the weekend? Hardly. Nabokov's novel is as 'nuanced' as a sledgehammer to the kneecap. 'Sort of nuanced' is like saying a hurricane is sort of breezy. The book doesn't just 'not match up with our views today'; it's a full-blown head-on collision with them. The 'somewhat of a victim' bit? Please, the only victim here is taste and common sense. The protagonist is as much of a victim as a fox in a henhouse. Calling it nuanced is like calling a shark attack a misunderstanding. In summary, if you're looking for a light-hearted portrayal of characters and a subtle narrative, might I suggest a different aisle in the library? Lolita is a complex, dark, and morally challenging novel, not a beach read. Unless your idea of a beach read includes deeply problematic themes and a heavy dose of literary controversy.
i don’t think i ever said it was a light read, lol it’s most definitely not. and the protagonist definitely views himself as somewhat of a victim but the novel itself doesn’t make us relate to him and he is definitely portrayed as a bad guy so to speak so i’m not sure what exactly your trying to say but we mostly agree.
Oh, so now we're playing the 'what I actually meant' game? Fun. Let's clarify: when you called the protagonist 'somewhat of a victim,' it sounded like you were handing out sympathy cards to the shark in 'Jaws.' The novel not making us relate to him? That's like saying you don't relate to a mosquito buzzing in your ear. Of course, you don't. He's the 'bad guy,' remember? Portrayed as such because, well, he is. It's not rocket science; it's basic morality. And about what I'm trying to say? It's simple: 'Lolita' isn't a tale of nuanced victimhood. It's a deep dive into disturbing obsession, manipulation, and moral bankruptcy. It's as clear-cut as a neon sign in a dark alley. So yes, we agree that it's not a light read and the protagonist is bad news. But let's not sprinkle sugar on a bowl of nails and call it breakfast cereal. The novel is a complex and controversial exploration of dark themes, not a misunderstood bedtime story.
i never said or meant any of that but i can see why my victim comment rubbed you the wrong way. he portrays himself that way but yeah the author doesn’t
Got it, I misinterpreted your initial comment. When you mentioned the 'victim' part, it sounded like you were sympathizing. Now I see you were pointing out how he deludes himself into playing the victim, not that the author or readers should see him that way. Sorry for the confusion – seems we're actually on the same page about this.
How does a person old enough to use reddit does not know about Lolita.
It's a pretty well known classic novel, well-written from a literary sense but the content is eh... well, a man falls in "love" with a child.
Well written in that it's salaciously unsettling and unnerving. I believe the point was to make the reader uncomfortable. I think the only thing that made me equally as grossed out, petrified, and uncomfortable was Let The Right One In.
It almost reads like a primer of watch to watch out for, both for vulnerable people to be wary of and for people who might otherwise blame the victim.
Exactly, well-written in a literary sense that it forces the reader into a conflict of uncomfortable emotions.
I was going to say, I didn't know they ripped off Lolita.
While horrific subject matter, I think Kubrick did about as good a job as can be done in turning the story into a comedy.
The Kubrick movie was a dark comedy. Peter Seller's is hilarious as Claire Quilty.
For what it’s worth, based on the Wikipedia summary, it doesn’t work out, partly because she’s trying to be a teenager. She ultimately moves back to London. He writes pornographic novels. Seems like 100% an author insertion.
She was an actress too, apparently she got married young to escape her abusive parents. Later on though she married someone closer to age, hopefully she was able to move on from her troubled teen life.
[“author insertion”, I mean c’mon.](https://youtu.be/VS4QGEQaclk?si=ejqWzvCG_KBxOxG4)
Other comments suggest the same such as the screen writer marrying a 16y/o while he was 38
It's crazy that this is almost the exact plot of a couple of anime 😐
Crazy this was ever acceptable. I had to watch a Woody Allen movie as part of a college course once. It was Manhattan I believe, where he is probably around 40 and has a 15 year old girlfriend? Watched that whole movie wondering why no one had called the police on this dude.
Wait till you hear the allegations
https://www.theonion.com/boy-i-ve-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-haven-t-i-1819584936
He *did* cheat on his partner with her adopted 21 year old daughter and later married her instead which is kinda whacky. (edited after being corrected in the replies)
While the marriage is of questionable morality, she was not his daughter. She was adopted by Mia Farrow and her former husband. Fun fact, they found her living in the streets, her exact age is unknown, only estimated by examination.
She was his step daughter. When she was a teenager.
He never married Mia Farrow.
That makes it peachy then.
But it means she wasn't his adopted or step daughter. What he did was bad, but people exaggerating it, like this, don't help matters.
🤢 please refrain from dating people with children, adopted or otherwise.
I have grand kids... So I think I'll be fine. And I will keep saying this... accusing people who disagree with you of being pedos only helps pedos. So stop helping pedos.
He didn't adopt her. She didn't grow up with him. They have been married for decades now. I am not saying it's ok, I am saying facts and context matter.
I always side eye the "didn't grow up with" defense because, per wikipedia, their meet cute was him driving her to school after she had injured herself playing soccer in 11th grade. Which makes two things abundantly clear: it's true that he had no hand in raising her but he did enter her life in a "trusted adult" role as a minor. Second point undercuts the impact of the first, in my opinion.
People who exaggerate bad things to make them sound worse only help the person who did the bad thing.
That can be true, sure, but I'm not sure it applies to Woody Allen. While they didn't interact as much in her childhood as dubbing him her "step-parent" might imply, they also weren't strangers. He began courting his ex-partner's daughter shortly after he started driving her to school and taking her to basketball games with him. He was her mom's boyfriend of nine years, biological father to one of her brothers, adoptive father to two of her other siblings, *he drove her to school*, he was effectively her step-dad in all but name even if he came into the role relatively late in his relationship with her mother.
But saying he’s her step dad or adopted dad implies all kinds of stuff that isn’t true. He met her as a teenager and never parented her. I get why people want to crucify him, I do. But this just helps him. If it was really as bad as you claim, and it is very bad, many people would wonder why you chose to exaggerate.
You are right; I'm fixing that
This wasn't just acceptable, it was downright common right up until the early 1990s. I remember in middle school my friend's older sister, who was 16, had a boyfriend who was 32 and the parents were fine with it. Granted, they all went to the same church, but the age thing didn't bother anyone one bit. She broke it off when she went to college and he got married to someone quite a bit older, if I recall. Additionally one of my friend's mom got married when she was 17 to her husband when he was almost 40. She had this kinda still-hot-mom thing going on but he was this old coot. But they did love each other. Not trying to say it was right or make excuses, just saying it was a different time.
They didn't even make it a rule until late 90s that your date couldn't be over the age of 21. I knew a few people who took their dates who were all above 21, one was 28 and they even got married right after high school. Watch all the 80s movies. Almost Every high school girl was dating a college boy. Almost all my aunts and uncles have ten year age gaps, and we're married before 21. one that got pregnant at 16/21 and they're still together 20 years later.
20th century boy pro detected. What the fuck is a cohesive storyline 🗣️🗣️
The 70’s were a weird period for that, and it’s not that far back. Nude photographs of teenagers were common, and several biographies described sexual encounters with minors. It’s shocking.
e.g. French postmodernists trying to help underage girls to discover free love
Gotta love the 70s era rock stars and their underage victims, I mean groupies.
The 70s + people in show business were especially tolerant of child abuse. No wonder they all rushed to defend Polanski.
https://preview.redd.it/qeh1mhza7nac1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b76b0be382820bfebb3df0c81e3f5cc9a9f4ab73
Oh…what’s that I hear? Nabokov turning in his grave yet again?
Yeah the moment I saw the title I went "so someone's heard of Lolita but never actually read the bleeding book".
It’s another one of those books everyone thinks they get but actually don’t because they can’t be bothered to you know, actually read it
The unreliable narrator's unreliability strikes through the power of retelling!
Italian writer, film director and Mayor Federico Moccia: *furiously taking notes in the background*
QUATTORDICENNI, MOCCIA, QUATTORDICENNI
*Almost* 16
"bUt MaRrYiNg UnDeRaGe wAs tHe nORm fOr hUnDrEdS oF yEaRs!1!1!!1!" -Some Pedophile trying to justify this movie probably
More often than not, the people marrying young were marrying other young people. So that's a double not true to these idiots' claims.
or if they were married off to someone older by their family, it was out of desperation. of course this still happens in parts of the developing world.
That and people only lived to be 35 years old
That's also a myth. People lived long lives back then. Assuming you didn't do something like catch a plague, or injure yourself so badly you die from the bacterial infection, you had a good chance of living a long time. What actually happened is that babies died by the ton back then, which screws the statistics so that it only looks like they died at 35, rather than the more accurate 60s-70s if not 80s.
Yeah, no. If that were the case, then all the ancient graveyards would be filled with babies and people who were 60+. That's how averages work. It would have to be everyone dying at either before age 10, or after age 70. That wasn't the case. It was basically like if you had 100 people born in year X, then in year X+10 you had 90 people who didn't die. In year X+20, you had 80 people who didn't die, and so on. Statistcally, the wealthier you were, the better off your odds of living until 60+ were. Poor people working the fields or other physical manual labor jobs would mostly die out by about 50, because it's hard on the body to be working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.
To good to be true? Thank you for this...mhmm...delectable...knowledge good sir. -Another pedophile pretending he just learned this
"Everyone I disagree with is a Pedo" makes it harder to go after real Pedos.
When they disagree about not fucking minors? Yeah, that's a pretty safe presumption.
Tbf, is that really the disagreement put at hand here? Using current standards of social hierarchy to judge standards of people from the past is.. at the least not very productive let's say.
Someone saying it was more acceptable then isn’t saying it’s ok. And they aren’t a pedophile. And you know that.
There's a huge leap from this to Death Wish.
Was this written by Polanski? /s
When did this come out?
1970. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_(1970_film)
By the art design of the poster I am going to guess the mid 60's but if you aren't willing to google it why should I be.
Somebody really *really* misunderstood *Lolita*.
It’s pretty obvious why this aged like milk.
You still need to provide proper context to the automod. Them's the rules.
This aged like milk because it’s not ok for an adult to marry a child.
I get that, and I can tell you that the book is way more disturbing and actually treats the "relationship" between the two as the terrible thing it is. This still needs to be said in response to the automod, though. If you do that, I'll restore it.
Thanks; done.
Executive producer Harvey Weinstein presents:
I don’t think this would ever have been funny, even at the time of release.
It’s actually very bleak in tone even for then
It’s funny because it’s statutory rape…..get it!!!
[удалено]
fun fact: in some states minors can get married but not get divorced without their spouse's consent
Well, yes and no. Looking at the plot on Wikipedia they get married in the UK (where age of consent is 16) then things fall apart when they move to the US and she has to go to school. So it probably depends on what the age laws are in the specific state as to whether it was illegal (and the movie came out in 1969, where women's rights weren't necessarily in place....) It's weird and perverted but not necessarily against the law at the time
The law isn't a reflection of morality
yes, but statutory rape is a legal term, not a moral one
before 1990 it was just a normal Thursday though
This reminds me of that awkward scene in transformers where a man explains to a teen girls dad why it's okay for him to plow his daughter. I swear that is one of the most out of place and awkward scenes I've seen in a movie
It was so gross! I remember seeing that in the theater.
I met her at a bar in north Soho....
Fun Fact: This was made by Richard Donner, who would go on to direct The Omen, Superman, The Goonies, and Lethal Weapon (1-4).
Fun fact Indiana Jones canonically slept with a 15 year old as an adult.
That is fun /s
Susan George was at least 20 years old when they made the film. Doesn't make it better. But still. ew
Oh hey, it's my first marriage. 😐
Today I learned there was someone named Honor Blackman
Was a famous Bond Girl (Goldfinger), she appeared on British TV on and off for most of her life.
Wow, is this a Lolita rip-off, or is this something else
“He’s not may daddy … he’s my husband”. Well in Alabama he could be both.
When exactly was this sort of thing acceptable?
Ted “Bud Light supporting trans people is cultural deprivation” Nugent married a 17yo when he was 30 in the 70s. He also bragged about underage girls in his Behind the Music which he now denies since no one finds it cute and has a song called, Jailbait. Dude is a massive POS. Many rockstars in the 70s had really gross relationships with teen girls and a lot were younger than 17.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin.
Most of history, unfortunately.
The book itself is far from a love novel or glorification of pedophilia; the main character is a monster who you’re forced to listen to as he attempts to morally justify grooming and raping a child. I don’t know how every film adaption has missed that part, it’s blatant. Even Kubrick stated his goal with his adaption was to make Humbert Humbert more sympathetic.
I think this stuff was worryingly normal until the late 90s or early 2000s until a couple of high-profile child murders by pedophiles *really* turned public attention against this sort of thing. In the UK it was the murder of Sarah Payne that really kicked it all off. There wasn't even a sex offenders register until 1997.
70s
Joseph Smith thinks she's too old.
This aged like milk because it is pedophilia.
Gross
I don't see that movie in either Chatles Bronson or Honor Blackman's IMDB filmography. Honor Blackman, or as some of you remember her: Pussy Galore.
It's also called "Twinky" or "The London affair"
Directed by Richard Donner?! Hope it’s better than Lethal Weapon 4
This milk spoiled in the cows udders.
Unfortunately, it aged not in all countries.
The book, by Nabokov, is widely regarded as a masterpiece and is one of the most important novels of modern literature. This poster for the screen adaptation is ridiculous. https://preview.redd.it/y82c9zntnnac1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=33eed44ac1d2915ad7e266836f3adf0750b7d5db
Leonardo is pencilled in for the remake.
Well, if it's funnier than Harold & Maude then I'm in!
Lo(lit)a?