#Lolita 1962

[doloresdisparue]

It's astonishing to me that people will post things like this with gifs of actual children without a single thought. This is a 14 year old child actor who later went public saying being in this movie destroyed her as a person. She was raped by the producer, a man in his 30s and you're gonna use her child face on your age gap fantasy posts? And when someone points that out to you you delete the comment? Do you have any empathy whatsoever? Do you think its normal to add pictures of children to this type of post?

cause im a really good girl you a very bad guy we’re a little match made in heaven ♡︎....

[mydarlinglo]

Sabrina Carpenter for W Magazine 💌💌

“Lolita” reference? I think so!

[doloresdisparue]

Here's your unfriendly reminder that according to Nabokov THIS is what Lolita should have looked like.

This is what he was picturing, what you should be picturing reading the novel. What he wanted the movie to look like.

Is this still cute and sexy and #goals? Something to put in a little aesthetic post? To post along with #daddy #older men do it better?

Or are you being extremely weird about a novel chronicling horrific abuse inflicted on a young child (much of which was based on real events)?

[drtyelvisfantasy]

We’re gonna party like it’s 1949🍒

[cherries-in-wine]

I love ur posts on lolita the book- what are ur thoughts on the movies?

aw tysm anon mwah <3

(Made a few edits because my perspective changed a little)

I don't really like the movies- in fact comparing them to the masterpiece that Vladimir Nabokov wrote feels like an insult. Sometimes art can only exist in a certain medium and when you take it out of that medium it loses its integrity. Lolita is art that can only exist as literature. This is what I used to believe but to be honest even as literature it's being misunderstood a lot so it feels as if no matter what medium lolita exists in, it'll always be interpreted wrong.

It took Vladimir Nabokov 5 years to write lolita because writing from the perspective of a pedophile is tough- it's using the abuser to tell the victim's story but in this case the abuser is our unreliable narrator, he had to make Humbert Humbert charming or at least intriguing in a fucked up way enough that the reader would be compelled to read further (lolita will disturb you but you won't able to put it down) but any competent reader would will be able to figure out that Humbert Humbert is just spewing his delusional bullshit.

It feels as if Vladimir Nabokov predicted the romanticization of Lolita as soon as we started putting girls on the book covers- he intended on lolita being faceless

So much of what makes the book incredible lies in reading in between the lines to figure out what's actual going on. Think of it as Humbert Humbert is forcing his heart shaped rose coloured glasses onto you like "see it's a beautiful tragic love story" and it's your responsibility to take them off to see things as they are, a 12 year old child being abused constantly.

Unreliable narrators in general are hard to portray on screen (it's not impossible ofcourse, gone girl, 500 days of summer and black swan do it really well) but extra difficult in this case because lolita and Dolores are 2 different people entirely. Lolita is the persona, Dolores is the person. Lolita is the nymphet, the seductress that only exists in Humbert's twisted mind, Dolores is the 12 year old child. Humbert sees lolita, he wants you to see lolita, but you need to focus on Dolores.

Lolita 1962 was laughably inaccurate, they made Dolores look like an elegant woman when even Humbert Humbert describes her as a messy tomboy. Lolita 1997 is better I guess, it follows the book a little more accurately. The movie is definitely pretty to look at and I don't have a problem with Dolores being an icon or people taking fashion inspiration from her. In my opinion she is an icon, it isn't fair to reduce a victim's identity to their trauma and abuser. Also she's so funny and is constantly insulting Humbert so mwah love her so much plus I relate to her a lot as I went through similar things. I think some scenes of Humbert Humbert being an unreliable narrator were translated really well, for example this argument-

Humbert gave a short description while the movie is more of lo's point of view, it's all screaming and shouting and absolutely devastating, Dominique Swain did an amazing job.

Both of the actresses were 14 during filming and that's just so unsettling to me. Sure you're using a body double for explicit scenes but isn't that just content for actual pedophiles, the closest thing to CP that's legal?. There are many older actresses that look younger but honestly that scares me more, because now there are no restrictions to the scenes they can film, which usually ends up underage characters in extremely exploitative scenes (think euphoria).

My feelings are sort of all over the place on this, I simply can't reach a satisfying conclusion- I don't think it's impossible to adapt lolita into a good film, black swan is one of my favourite movies ever and nina sayers is as unrealiable as a narrator gets, so it's not impossible to portray Humbert Humbert on screen but it will be difficult. On the other hand I just know that people will find some way to romanticize the movie- no matter how well it's written like in the novel it's so obvious Humbert is a pedophile that he might as well get it tattoed on his head but people still think of it as "aw tragic beautiful love story". But part of me thinks that if they write it kind of like gone girl, you believe nick is the murderer in the first half then amy's scheming is revealed in the second, just like that if lolita is shown in the first half but after dolores runs away her perspective is shown to audience, how she's so miserable and gives an accurate depiction of Humbert Humbert's abuse, maybe showing that horrifying reality of the story will end it's romanticization once and for all.

[summerinthesunrise]

i want us to be like this.

[daisydenim1967]

‧₊˚♡

[darladolly]

i'm gonna be your bubblegum bitch ♥*♡∞:｡.｡

[rightmixofcocaineandheroin]

[angelfacedelrey]

yeah, i wish i'd been a teen, teen idle ༊*·˚

[xo01]

[doloresdisparue]

"How, then, do you explain the “Lolita cult”? How do you explain all these girls who move, act, dress, and talk like Lolita?" "I wouldn’t know. Perhaps it is a result of the way the popular press has distorted my poor Lo. It has come up with something that has absolutely nothing to do with the book or Lolita the character. Lolita is the story of a sad little girl in a very sad world. The “Lolita cult” is something completely different.

- Vladimir Nabokov, L'Europeo, 1966

[thewhitelilysociety]

“When watched today, the final film is a bag of contradictions. Lyon is made up with eyeliner, sooty lashes and permanently coiffed hair – and yet she sleeps in the nightdress of a Victorian doll, all ruffles, ribbons and bows.

When we first meet her she's rigidly placed and posed, gazing at Humbert over the top of her sunglasses. She looks imperious, knowing, and appears to be at least 18; she is not, as Nabokov describes in the book, "standing four feet ten in one sock". In a 1974 foreword to Lolita: A Screenplay, Nabokov admitted that "the frills of Miss Lyon's elaborate nightgown were painful.”

by Steph Green, from “The troubling legacy of the Lolita story, 60 years on”, written for BBC culture

[merp-blerp]

Did they... make merch for Lolita...? I just randomly found this. Did this ad just steal this image from the film? Mr. Nabokov is barfing in his grave forever. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past this icky adaptation of the book to try and sell makeup...

[summerinthesunrise]

heyy i’m back i didn’t acc kms xx<3

[bikinigoldbaby]

i thought that u wanted a real girl baby