The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 3

Part 1    Part 2

The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 3

In comparing these first encounters between the novel and the film, through the poetic prose and the visual surrogate of it, it becomes undeniably clear that both Humbert and Lester are obsessed with their respective nymphets. This is the core aspect that has been adapted from the novel to Mendes’ film; true, American Beauty is not a visualized replica of Nabokov’s novel, but the heart of the novel is translated seamlessly into this particular film—much more seamlessly than the two previous adaptations of Lolita. There are obvious parallels between the two texts, and each character acts in rather similar ways. The descriptions of the events, though the events themselves are different, are constructed in a way that elucidates the protagonists’ obsessions. Humbert’s obsession for younger girls remains whereas this is obsession is a singular occurrence for Lester and it does eventually end. Although there are distinct parallels between the two texts, this is a notable exception that must be addressed.

Lester Burnham is representative of a modernized version of the postmodern Humbert. While both Humbert and Lester are obsessed with young females—equally latching onto these girls as ideas of love that they believe will fulfill their desires and fantasies—the former acts on his obsessions whereas the latter does not because his morals stop him in his tracks. Lester transforms into this modernized character when he realizes that the flesh-and-blood Angela is not the Angela he constantly envisions, and he is no longer fascinated or in love with her. Humbert does not make this transformation. When Humbert visits Lolita at the end of the novel, he sees her as “hopelessly worn at seventeen” but that he still “loved her more than anything [he] had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else. She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet [he] had rolled [himself] upon with such cries in the past” (Nabokov 277). Yes, Lolita is his sin, but he still loves her and he cannot erase the various sexual encounters he had with her. When Lester attempts to have sex with Angela, he is struck by an epiphany and knows that his love for Angela is a farce. Angela is not who he thought she was; he cannot continue in his quest of youth-attainment and sexual fulfillment and recognizes that he must stop. The real frailty and innocence of Angela is seen and this reminds Lester of his estranged daughter, Jane, the one person he wants to reconnect with. He senses that if he were to consummate this fantasy relationship, he would essentially be harming Jane. “Lester’s seduction of the girl at the film’s end, thwarted by the realization that she is a virgin, gives way to a more paternal posturing, where he feeds and covers her and uses the opportunity to inquire about the well-being of his daughter” (McKittrick 6). Lester must grow up and he tries to connect with his daughter through Angela. She is no longer Lester’s obsession and he attempts, in a roundabout way, to reform his broken family; he discovers that happiness lies within his family, and he desires to reclaim that happiness (as seen when he is staring at a photo of Carolyn, Jane, and himself directly before he is killed). The process of fragmentation he slowly spiraled into, sparked by his sexual obsession with Angela, is now reversed, and Lester becomes a modernized version of his postmodern counterpart, a morally “improved” character who is appropriate for contemporary cinema-goers.

There are entirely too many factors present within Sam Mendes’ American Beauty to state that it is a direct film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. Yet, there is an interesting and obvious comparison when one focuses solely on the relationships between the two central characters of each text—Humbert/Lolita and Lester/Angela. While Lolita remains in the postmodern present, Mendes reimagines the characters in the modern past; Lester has specifically been transformed from a postmodern character to a modern character. This is certainly not revelatory, but this modification can be seen as an “improvement” for modern-day audiences. American films, generally, like to present obstacles and come to a solution. This adaptation of Humbert to Lester does not simplify the character, but bases him within a moral confine that is, perhaps, easier for 21^st century viewers to handle. Adaptation is tricky, and changes must be made because of the two differing media. In saving only the core relationship between Humbert and Lolita in this adaptation, there is a lower risk of Mendes “betraying” his audiences who have read the novel and a higher risk of accepting this film as its own, with obvious influences from Nabokov’s novel of course.

Works Cited

McKittrick, Casey. “‘I Laughed And Cringed At The Same Time’: Shaping Pedophilic Discourse Around American Beauty And Happiness.” Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal Of Film & Television 47 (2001): 3. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 May 2014.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. New York: Vintage International, 1955. Print.

The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 2

Part 1

The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 2

Where Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation of Lolita falters and Lyne’s adaptation slightly improves, Sam Mendes’ American Beauty shines brightly. The interior monologue-ness of the novel is nearly erased in Kubrick’s film; while it is improved upon in Lyne’s film with the use of relevant voice-over, it is reimagined in Mendes’ film with the use of dream sequences. The novel’s prose is highly poetic, and, at times, almost lyrical; it brings the reader into the novel and seduces him or her into the stylized web of thinking that is Humbert’s consciousness. From the novel’s beginning, the reader is caught into believing Humbert’s obvious obsession with his prized possession: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta” (9). Not only is this a way in which Humbert can describe his obsession with Lolita, but it is also a stylistic modality that beautifully forces her name into the reader’s mouth; now the reader can mentally and physically understand the importance of Lolita. Nabokov’s highly stylized diction is entertaining in and of itself, but it also conjures up sympathy for Lolita’s protagonist. Through this prose, the reader can connect—to some degree—with this pedophilic murderer: “You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style” (9). One cannot help but connect with Humbert. Furthermore, the intermittent use of French—the language of love—also helps to build a relationship with Humbert, even if the reader does not know the language; it presents the protagonist as a sophisticated debonair, making it difficult to not be seduced. Nabokov’s prose is essential to understanding Humbert’s character; however, it is difficult to translate prose into dialogue, a central means of relating information to the viewer. While voice-over can be effective in reproducing Nabokov’s poetic style and the interior mind of Humbert, as seen in Lyne’s film, it would more than likely be intolerable if used constantly throughout the film. Instead, a filmmaker must decide how to properly convey this style. In “Pistols And Cherry Pies: Lolita From Page To Screen,” Dan Burn states that “[v]isual references function in place of the dense texture of verbal punning and allusion which Nabokov uses throughout the novel” (246). To represent the verbal texture through visuals, as Burn suggests, is a way in which Lolita’s atmosphere and poetic context can be reproduced. Through the use of dream sequences, Mendes is able to replicate Nabokov’s highly sophisticated writing style as a visual surrogate.

The poetic prose Nabokov uses in his novel is reinterpreted in Mendes’ American Beauty as dream sequences, usually involving rose petals. These dream sequences take the viewer directly into the mind of Lester, and so we are able to instantly recognize that this is within his head. This effectively replaces the voice-over (though it is used throughout the film as well), and gives us a visual representation of Lester’s obsession with Angela; visuals, one can argue, hold a greater importance in this medium. The rose petals, a common trope in poetry and literature, come to symbolize Lester’s love and sexual desire, a “represent[ation of] a pleasurable fragmentation (McKittrick 6). However, the rose petals do not just symbolize the sexual desire Lester has for Angela. Carolyn is seen cutting and pruning her roses—demonstrative of their failing relationship and marriage, which is, according to Lester, Carolyn’s fault. Jane wears a rose-covered shirt at one point in the film, which suggests possible incest between Lester and Jane, illustrative of the father/(step)daughter relationship in Nabokov’s novel. Yet, Angela is usually most associated with rose petals. Multiple dream sequences with Lester and Angela contain rose petals in one way or another and easily correlate to the poetic prose of the novel, a visual substitute. One instance in the film that beautifully represents Mendes’ use of a dream sequence is directly after he first encounters Angela:

INT. BURNHAM HOUSE – MASTER BEDROOM – A FEW HOURS LATER

CLOSE on a solitary red ROSE PETAL as it falls slowly through the air.

We’re looking down on Lester and Carolyn in bed. Even in sleep, Carolyn looks determined.

Lester is awake and stares up at us.

LESTER: It’s the weirdest thing.

The ROSE PETAL drifts into view, landing on his pillow.

LESTER (cont’d): I feel like I’ve been in a coma for about twenty years, and I’m just now waking up.

More ROSE PETALS fall onto the bed, and he smiles up at…

His POV: Angela, naked, FLOATS above us as a deluge of ROSE PETALS falls around her.

Her hair fans out around her head and GLOWS with a subtle, burnished light. She looks down at us with a smile that is all things…

Lester smiles back and LAUGHS, as ROSE PETALS cover his face.

LESTER (cont’d): Spec-tac-ular. (Ball)

The sight of Angela has wakened Lester from a twenty-year coma; he is, essentially, reborn. This dream sequence illustrates Angela both as an innocent angel, complete with halo, and as a sexually desirable female. The deluge of petals, falling onto Lester’s body, signifies Lester’s desire for Angela. He smiles and laughs, knowing that he has found a new object of desire, a new obsession that can reactivate his life and be his fountain of youth. Lester, in a very Humbertian way, enunciates each syllable in “spectacular,” just as Nabokov does with “Lo. Lee. Ta” (9). Humbert’s desire for Lolita forces the reader to read her name in a specific manner; likewise, Lester’s reaction to seeing this rose petal-clad young woman forces him embrace and linger on his newfound obsession. Even though this is a vision, Lester is confident and now wishes to include Angela in his life. This dream sequence, one of many, shows Lester’s intense fixation on Angela.

Another dream sequence, which occurs in in the latter section of the film, again illustrates Lester’s desire for and fascination of Angela. The use of rose petals surfaces once more, bringing the poetic quality of Nabokov’s writing back to the forefront. Alan Ball writes:

She reaches inside the refrigerator to grab a bottle. As she does, she moves to place her other hand casually on Lester’s shoulder. He sees it coming. Everything SLOWS DOWN, and all sound FADES…

EXTREME CLOSE UP on her hand as it briefly touches his shoulder in SLOW MOTION. We HEAR only the amplified BRUSH of her fingers against the fabric of his suit, and its unnatural, hollow ECHO…

BACK IN REAL TIME: She grabs the root beer and smiles at him.

CLOSE on Lester: his eyes narrow slightly, then:

He cups her face in his hands and kisses her. She seems shocked, but doesn’t resist as he pulls her toward him with surprising strength. He breaks the kiss, looking at her in awe, then he reaches up and touches his lips. His eyes widen as he pulls a ROSE PETAL from his mouth right before we SMASH CUT TO:

INT. BURNHAM HOUSE – KITCHEN – CONTINUOUS.

Fantasy qualities are apparent within this portion of the text, as seen in the use of slow motion and the “unnatural” aspects of sound and jumping in time These features help set a specific dreamlike atmosphere. The rose petal, as representative of poetic style, reemerges. The petal, however, holds even more significant meaning here because Lester and Angela kiss; as a symbol for sexual desire, and winning Angela’s affections, Lester receives that youthfulness and sexuality that he longs from her. As Kurt Fawver, in his essay “Little Girls and Psychic Fiends: Nabokov’s Lolita as Vampire Tale,” states, it’s “possible that Humbert’s aberrant sexual proclivities are…attempts to drain Lolita’s essence so that he may be spiritually resurrected and renewed” (133). Just as Humbert sucks the blood out of Lolita’s body—“not simply as a dermatological aid, but as sustenance”—a similar representation is presented here with the transference of the red rose petal (Fawver 133). Now that Angela is the trigger for his reawakening, he can, through these physical interactions—though they are solely within his mind—“drain” Angela’s youth and sexual libido. Lester is using Angela in an uncannily similar way that Humbert is using Lolita. He is restoring himself with the aid of his prey. This dream sequence, again, is a visual representation of Nabokov’s prose; his poetic style and the usage of these roses are analogous. That fact that these petals emerge time and again within American Beauty suggests just how deeply rooted Lester is in his obsession with Angela.

The visualization of Nabokov’s poetic prose facilitates Lester’s obsessive thoughts of Angela. Just as the novel depicts Humbert’s initial nymphet obsession—that is, Annabel—Lester’s initial obsession with Angela is just as impactful. Humbert’s obsession with Annabel is taken over by his obsession with Lolita, however, who he sees clearly, almost as if she is a projection on a screen. However, Annabel and Lolita are actually one in the same; much like in Poe’s fiction, Nabokov presents both these characters as dream figures, ciphers for Humbert’s imagination—although they are real entities, they do not fully exist except in Humbert’s mind. Humbert first sees Lolita in a garden, in “a sudden burst of greenery…in a pool of sun” that frames the “half-naked” Lolita (Nabokov 39). Thus, one can immediately connect Lolita to nature, especially when one considers Humbert’s remark to Charlotte Haze’s presentation of her daughter and her lilies simultaneously; Nabokov writes, “‘That was my Lo,’ she said, ‘and these are my lilies,’” in which Humbert responds, “‘Yes,’ I said, ‘yes.’ They are beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!’” (40). Humbert is obviously commenting on Lolita rather than the lilies, but, here, the two bleed together, becoming one in the same. As Paolo Simonetti states in his essay “The Maniac In The Garden: Lolita And The Process Of American Civilization,” the reader, because of this simultaneous presentation, “inevitably associates the garden with Lolita” (155). Painting Lolita as an innocent yet desirable character—almost like Eve in Eden—gives her significance for Humbert and he is immediately entranced. This becomes even clearer when one considers how cinematically Nabokov is writing; his descriptions are fully formed in one’s mind. The effect of meeting Lolita for the first time creates an earth-shattering obsession. Nabokov writes:

I find it most difficult to express with adequate force that flash, that shiver, that impact of passionate recognition. In the course of the sun-shot moment that my glance slithered over the kneeling child…while I passed her by in my disguise (a great big handsome hunk of movieland manhood), the vacuum of my soul managed to suck in every detail of her bright beauty. (39)

Humbert’s fascination and obsession of Lolita is instantaneous. He wishes to drink up every detail of her—in vampiric fashion—which enables him to constantly have a mental picture of her. Humbert is unable to, with “adequate force,” fully illuminate his complete enthrallment with Lolita. The striking “impact of passionate recognition” seen in Nabokov’s novel makes a reappearance in American Beauty where terms of nature—that is, the rose petals—bloom into view.

Lester Burnham’s first encounter with Angela is just as affecting and entrancing as Humbert’s first meeting with Lolita. The metaphoric connection between Lolita and nature rematerializes here; what is even more interesting, though, is that nature is used in a nature-less setting. The use of the rose petals, thus, makes Angela unique in reference to the other individuals in the scene; she easily becomes the focus for Lester and he can imagine her in his own terms. Mendes’ film relocates the action to a gymnasium where, during halftime, Jane, Angela and the rest of the Dancing Spartanettes perform their routine:

His POV: Jane performs well, concentrating. Dancing awkwardly next to her is Angela.

Suddenly Angela looks right at us and smiles… a lazy, insolent smile.

Lester leans forward in his seat.

His POV: We’re focused on Angela now. Everything starts to SLOW DOWN… the MUSIC acquires an eerie ECHO…

We ZOOM slowly toward Lester as he watches, transfixed.

His POV: Angela’s awkwardness gives way to a fluid grace, and “ON BROADWAY” FADES into dreamy, hypnotic MUSIC. The light on Angela grows stronger, and the other girls DISAPPEAR entirely.

Lester is suddenly alone in the stands, spellbound.

His POV: Angela looks directly at us now, dancing only for Lester. Her movements take on a blatantly erotic edge as she starts to unzip her uniform, teasing us with an expression that’s both innocent and knowing, then… she pulls her uniform OPEN and a profusion of RED ROSE PETALS spill forth… and we SMASH CUT TO:

INT. HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM – CONTINUOUS

Angela, fully clothed, is once again surrounded by the other girls. The HIGH SCHOOL BAND plays its last note, the Dancing Spartanettes strike their final pose, and the audience APPLAUDS. (Ball)

Ball, just like Nabokov, writes in cinematic terms. “[M]uch of the film’s mise-en-scène,” such as this first encounter scene, “is devoted to his fantasy of ‘getting’ the adolescent girl” (McKittrick 5). The music changes from The Drifters’ poppy-soul track to that of dreams and hypnosis; again, Lester is completely spellbound by Angela. The crowded stadium becomes virtually empty and Lester becomes the sole voyeur of Angela’s erotic dance, now brightly illuminated in her own pool of sun. Everything begins to slow down and the viewer is able to see how close Lester and Angela symbolically get, even with the vast emptiness surrounding them. In wiping the slate clean—by eliminating the crowd of spectators—Angela becomes Lester’s, at least in his mind. Additionally, one could argue that in eliminating his competition, the budding flower that is Angela can flourish. Likewise, the fact that she is “both innocent and knowing” plays with the concept of seeing her as a part of nature; so, quite expectedly, when she unzips her uniform, “a profusion of RED ROSE PETALS spill forth” (Ball). This scene, as do the other dream sequences, provides the interior monologue aspect from the novel and transplants it into the film. We are able to get a glimpse inside Lester’s head, just as we are able to read Humbert’s thoughts on the page.

 

Works Cited

American Beauty. Dir. Sam Mendes. Perf. Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, and Mena Suvari. DreamWorks Pictures, 1999. Film.

Ball, Alan. American Beauty. N.d. Final draft. Dailyscript.com. Web. 1 May 2014.

Burns, Dan E. “Pistols And Cherry Pies: Lolita From Page To Screen.” Literature Film Quarterly 12.4 (1984): 245. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 May 2014.

Fawver, Kurt. “Little Girls And Psychic Fiends: Nabokov’s Lolita As Vampire Tale.” Notes & Queries 58.1 (2011): 133-138. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 May 2014.

McKittrick, Casey. “‘I Laughed And Cringed At The Same Time’: Shaping Pedophilic Discourse Around American Beauty And Happiness.” Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal Of Film & Television 47 (2001): 3. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 May 2014.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. New York: Vintage International, 1955. Print.

Simonetti, Paolo. “The Maniac In The Garden: Lolita And The Process Of American Civilization.” Critique 53.2 (2012): 149-163. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2014.

The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 1

The Modernization of a Postmodern Humbert: Lolita and American Beauty – Part 1

Adapting popular short stories, plays, and novels to celluloid is an inevitable phenomenon. For some pieces of literature, it takes years to produce a film; for others, like John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, it takes just months to go from page to screen. Various obstacles appear in adapting literary works, especially those known the world over, so certain choices are made in order for the film to be produced and reach the global market. This means that changes are unavoidable. One must remember that making films is a business, thus films must be made in order to appeal to the widest ranging public as humanly possible—at least for the larger studios. This is ever so much the case in the various adaptations of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel, Lolita. Nabokov’s novel details thirty-something Humbert Humbert’s pedophilic obsession with a twelve-year-old “nymphet,” the eponymous Lolita. Humbert’s constant obsession with this young girl is fascinatingly intriguing in the novel, but is less apparent in the first film adaptation. Directed by Stanley Kubrick and released in 1962, the Humbert of this film, played by James Mason, is a simplified version of Nabokov’s psychologically complex Humbert. Humbert’s obsession with Lolita (Sue Lyon) seems to be the first of its kind, and he appears more as a father figure rather than an older lover; while their relationship is present in the film, Humbert’s obsession is less of a focus. Adrian Lyne’s 1997 adaptation of Nabokov’s novel presents a more “faithful” depiction of the novel’s plot and of Humbert (Jeremy Irons) and Lolita’s (Dominique Swain) relationship, but it is devoid of the novel’s romanticized passion; unlike the novel’s Humbert, this Humbert does not seem fully entranced with this Lolita. Perhaps a more accurate illustration of Humbert and Lolita’s relationship is seen in Sam Mendes’ American Beauty (1999). While neither character directly appears in the film, they are equivalently portrayed in the characters of Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) and Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari). While there are several differences between Nabokov’s Lolita and American Beauty, the relationship between these two characters, as depicted through Mendes’ poetic visuals and obsession-obvious first interactions, illustrate a comparable relationship.

One may question whether or not American Beauty actually is an adaptation of Lolita; and, yes, it does seem difficult to define it as such. Yet, it also seems remarkably uncanny that Lester Burnham is an anagram for Humbert Learns and that Lester falls in love with a girl with the last name of Hayes. American Beauty is undoubtedly inspired by Nabokov’s novel, if only when one considers the relationship between Lester and Angela. The novel Lolita focuses mainly on the relationship between Humbert and the titular character, and this central focus returns in the form of Lester and Angela’s relationship; more precisely, it is the obsession Lester has with Angela that is undeniably similar to that of Humbert’s obsession with Lolita. Mendes’ film, however, incorporates other factors and characters that complicate the notion that it is an adaptation of Lolita. Lester’s life is in shambles and he is having a mid-life crisis. He is in a crumbling marriage with Carolyn (Annette Bening) and his relationship with his daughter, Jane (Thora Birch), is, to put it mildly, distant. He quits his magazine-writing job of fourteen years and finds employment at Mr. Smiley’s, a fast-food restaurant. While Humbert is married a few times, his marriages are relatively short and do not cause any immediate consequences; additionally, Humbert does not have a biological daughter, just a stepdaughter, Lolita. These differences certainly complicate the Humbert/Lester parallel.

Thus, more direct comparisons between Humbert/Lolita and Lester/Angela should also be considered in viewing American Beauty as an adaptation. In the novel, Lolita is twelve—a definitive nymphet, a maiden “[b]etween the age limits of nine and fourteen” (Nabokov 16). However, Angela is not technically a nymphet. While her exact age is not given, she is in the latter part of her high school career. Even though Angela is older and is more cognizant of her flirtatious advances toward Lester, she is still a virgin, which places her in the realm of youth and innocence. While Humbert has had an obsession with nymphets for decades—beginning with the Poe-etic Annabel in his early teens—this is, to the best of our knowledge, Lester’s first occurrence of loving or fantasizing about a minor. Furthermore, Lester and Angela never end up having sex, which is in complete contrast to Humbert and Lolita. Casey McKittrick, in his essay “‘I Laughed And Cringed At The Same Time’: Shaping Pedophilic Discourse Around American Beauty And Happiness,” posits that these changes are too drastic to identify Angela as Lolita’s double. McKittrick writes:

The specularization of her body, combined with her adultlike knowingness, may tip the scales from perceiving her as a ‘woman-child’ to identifying her as a woman. Finally, the sexual relationship never comes to fruition; Angela’s ‘deflowering’ never takes place. Thus she remains an object of erotic fantasy, but her (filmic) body remains untouched or, at least, unpenetrated. (6)

McKittrick is correct when he states that a viewer may identify Angela as a woman, far removed from the cusp of initial puberty; yet, since Angela is not “deflowered” by Lester, she actually retains her innocence, which essentially tips the scales back to perceiving her as the “woman-child” figure. Nevertheless, Angela does remain “an object of erotic fantasy” for Lester, which undoubtedly signals the immoral obsession he has for her. While the novel’s Humbert is morally ambiguous—a trait indicative of postmodernity—Lester seems to have more of a moral compass, exemplified in his fight with Carolyn, who threatens him with divorce: “On what grounds? I’m not a drunk, I don’t fuck other women, I don’t mistreat you, I’ve never hit you, or even tried to touch you since you made it so abundantly clear just how unnecessary you consider me to be” (American Beauty). This not only illustrates Lester and Carolyn’s marital problems, but it also depicts that Lester has moral obligations to his family, even when his family members are unresponsive to his desires. Similarly, the fact that Lester does not end up having sex with Angela—he refrains from acting upon his obsessive desires—further demonstrates his morality, widening the gap between Humbert and Lester. Even with all of these notable differences, Lester’s obsession with Angela is easily correlated with Humbert’s obsession with Lolita. The obsession itself is the crux of interpreting these characters as a single unit. All of the noted factors play a role within American Beauty and the character of Lester, but the obsession seen within the film outshines the same depiction in direct adaptations of Nabokov’s novel—that is, the films directed by Kubrick and Lyne. The base of the novel is Humbert’s obsession with Lolita, and this is beautifully illustrated in Mendes’ film. Thus, American Beauty is not an adaptation of Nabokov’s entire work, but strictly of the obsession Humbert has for Lolita.

Works Cited

American Beauty. Dir. Sam Mendes. Perf. Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, and Mena Suvari. DreamWorks Pictures, 1999. Film.

McKittrick, Casey. “‘I Laughed And Cringed At The Same Time’: Shaping Pedophilic Discourse Around American Beauty And Happiness.” Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal Of Film & Television 47 (2001): 3. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 May 2014.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. New York: Vintage International, 1955. Print.

Maurice Binder and DePatie-Freleng – “Charade” and “The Pink Panther”

Here’s another excerpt from my research on animated title sequences. Here I discuss Maurice Binder (Charade) and DePatie-Freleng (The Pink Panther):

Although Saul Bass is a monumental figure of cinematic graphic design during the Golden Age, he is not the only title designer by any means. Working within the similar genre of Vertigo—that is, adventure, thriller, and mystery—is Maurice Binder. Binder is probably most known for his work on the James Bond film series, most notably the famous gun barrel sequence beginning with Bond’s first outing in Dr. No (1962). While Binder slightly departs from the geometrically-based designs created by Bass with the use of groovy silhouetted dancers, he does bring in a series of color-changing circles—symbolic bullet holes—that advise the audience to expect dangerous adventure: the wild side of Mr. Bond. Binder’s work on Stanley Donen’s Charade (1963) illustrates a more abstract version of what will occur within the film. Charade, another mystery-thriller, recounts the murder of Charles Lampert, the husband of Regina “Reggie” Lampert (Audrey Hepburn), and how three men are in pursuit of the money Charles allegedly stole from them. Thus, these men suspect Reggie of the money; with the help of Brian Cruikshank (Cary Grant), in the form of multiple aliases, Reggie Lampert escapes the clutches of the three men, and ultimately ends up in love with Cruikshank. The opening title sequence displays the multifaceted and entirely intertwining storyline and characters through the use of constantly moving shapes. Perhaps the most elucidating shapes Binder uses are arrows and spiraling pinwheels. Arrows are continuously overlapping and spiraling into a ball of comedically-wonderful confusion, which is precisely the effect of the film. The viewer is always second-guessing who should and should not be trusted, yet it is still a fun and entertaining romantic-comedy of sorts. The pinwheel also accommodates this feeling of fun confusion; the twirling shapes only heighten the awareness of this fast-paced romantic-thriller. The combination of flashy colors and abstract symbols illustrates the core of the film—this chaotic thriller will have a multitude of twists and turns that will leave the viewer wildly entertained.

Veering away from the use of such abstract shapes is a welcome addition to the animated title sequence roster. DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, formed by director Friz Freleng and executive David DePatie, was constructed in 1963 (Beck, 2004). DePatie-Freleng Enterprises’s first assignment was for Blake Edwards’s The Pink Panther (1964), in which the duo created the eponymous character in animated form. This famous panther is seen in pantomime, cleverly interacting with the titles, a glove, and a curious inspector. The panther’s playfulness and sly attitude illuminates the human “panther,” Sir Charles Lytton, who is in search of the pink panther jewel. This is a departure from the majority of Bass’s and Binder’s work because we get an actual character within the sequence. As Beck (2004) points out: “The cool, contemporary style of the design and graphics, Henry Mancini’s distinctive theme music and the pantomime comedy were a complete departure from the cheaply made theatrical cartoons created by competitors,” as well as other opening titles (p. 208). The title sequence readily provides us with the sense of a comedic mystery-thriller; the audience will feel attached to this panther (even in human form) because of his wit and charm. The sequence itself also provides us with the overall action of the film: discovering the jewel and outlasting the nosy inspector; the sequence does not give everything away, but subtly hints about the overarching mystery.

Criterion Announces September 2014 Titles

The news is here! The folks at Criterion have announced their 2014 titles. Something else is new as well. According to Criterion, the collection will return to Blu-ray or DVD releases; I personally loved the Blu-ray/DVD combo packs, as it gave me an option if I didn’t have a Blu-ray player around. Most people, I’ve realized, like the change though. Oh, well. Back to the good news! Here are the releases for September 2014:

Eraserhead – September 16

David Lynch’s 1977 debut feature, Eraserhead, is both a lasting cult sensation and a work of extraordinary craft and beauty. With its mesmerizing black-and-white photography by Frederick Elmes, evocative sound design, and unforgettably enigmatic performance by Jack Nance, this visionary nocturnal odyssey remains one of American cinema’s darkest dreams.

Special Features:

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed stereo soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• “Eraserhead” Stories, a 2001 documentary by David Lynch on the making of the film
• New high-definition restorations of six short films by Lynch: Six Figures Getting Sick (1966), The Alphabet (1968), The Grandmother (1970), The Amputee, Part 1 and Part 2 (1974), and Premonitions Following an Evil Deed (1996), all with video introductions by Lynch
• New and archival interviews with cast and crew
• Trailer

Macbeth – September 23

Roman Polanski imbues his unflinchingly violent adaptation of William Shakespeare’s tragedy of ruthless ambition and murder in medieval Scotland with grit and dramatic intensity. Jon Finch and Francesca Annis are charged with fury and sex appeal as a decorated warrior rising in the ranks and his driven wife, scheming together to take the throne by any means. Coadapted by Polanski and the great theater critic and dramaturge Kenneth Tynan, and shot against a series of stunning, stark British Isle landscapes, this version of Macbeth is among the most atmospheric and authentic of all Shakespeare films.

Special Features:

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed stereo soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New documentary about the making of the film, featuring interviews with director Roman Polanski, producer Andrew Braunsberg, assistant executive producer Victor Lownes, and stars Francesca Annis and Martin Shaw
• Polanski Meets Macbeth, a 1971 documentary by Frank Simon featuring rare footage of the film’s cast and crew at work
• Theatrical trailers
• More!
• PLUS: An essay by critic Terrence Rafferty

The Innocents – September 23

This genuinely frightening, exquisitely made supernatural gothic stars Deborah Kerr as an emotionally fragile governess who comes to suspect that there is something very, very wrong with her precocious new charges. A psychosexually intensified adaptation of Henry James’s classic The Turn of the Screw, cowritten by Truman Capote and directed by Jack Clayton, The Innocents is a triumph of narrative economy and technical expressiveness, from its chilling sound design to the stygian depths of its widescreen cinematography by Freddie Francis.

Special Features:

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• Audio commentary featuring cultural historian Christopher Frayling
• New interview with cinematographer John Bailey on director of photography Freddie Francis and the look of the film
• Archival interviews with editor James Clark, Francis, and script supervisor Pamela Francis
• Trailer
• More!
• PLUS: An essay by critic Maitland McDonagh

Sundays and Cybele – September 30

In this provocative Academy Award winner from French director Serge Bourgignon, a psychologically damaged war veteran and a neglected child begin a startlingly intimate friendship—one that ultimately ignites the suspicion and anger of his friends and neighbors in suburban Paris. Bourguignon’s film makes thoughtful, humane drama out of potentially incendiary subject matter, and with the help of the sensitive cinematography of Henri Decaë and a delicate score by Maurice Jarre, Sundays and Cybèle becomes a stirring contemplation of an alliance between two troubled souls.

Special Features:

• New 2K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interviews with director Serge Bourguignon and actor Patricia Gozzi
• Le sourire (1960), Bourguignon’s Palme d’Or–winning short documentary
• Trailer
• New English subtitle translation
• PLUS: An essay by critic Ginette Vincendeau

Ali: Fear Eats the Soul – September 30

The wildly prolific German filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder paid homage to his cinematic hero Douglas Sirk with this update of that filmmaker’s 1955 All That Heaven Allows. A lonely widow (Brigitte Mira) meets a much younger Arab worker (El Hedi ben Salem) in a bar during a rainstorm. They fall in love, to their own surprise—and to the outright shock of their families, colleagues, and drinking buddies. In Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Fassbinder expertly uses the emotional power of classic Hollywood melodrama to expose the racial tensions underlying contemporary German culture.

Special Features:

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack
• Introduction from 2003 by filmmaker Todd Haynes
• Interviews from 2003 with actor Brigitte Mira and editor Thea Eymèsz
• Shahbaz Noshir’s 2002 short Angst isst Seele auf, which reunites Mira, Eymèsz, and cinematographer Jürgen Jürges to tell the story, based on real events, of an attack by neo-Nazis on a foreign actor while on his way to a stage performance of Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s screenplay
• Signs of Vigorous Life: New German Cinema, a 1976 BBC program about the national film movement of which Fassbinder was a part
• Scene from Fassbinder’s 1970 film The American Soldier that inspired Ali
• Trailer
• PLUS: An essay by critic Chris Fujiwara

I must confess that I haven’t seen any of these films, though they all look rather interesting. I did start watching Eraserhead, but I simply couldn’t get into it. I do believe it deserves a second chance, though (and, since it’s on Hulu Plus, I can easily watch it). I know that there are many fans of the film, so I’m sure they’re positively elated at this announcement. And The Innocents looks utterly fascinating, especially since I love The Turn of the Screw (and it’s written by Capote!). And, who doesn’t like Shakespeare? I’m sure Polanski’s version of Macbeth is great; though, I am partial to Kurosawa’s version, Throne of Blood.

Summer of Film – 2013

This summer I decided to devour as much cinema as I could before heading back to school (I moved back in today, actually). I kept a record of all of the films I watched over the summer; sure, I could have done other things with my time, but I decided not to. I was able to watch 150 films this summer, which is many more than I ever expected to watch. I watched films from the 1920s to 2013. Some were fantastic, some were good, some weren’t anything special, and some were even down right uninteresting and/or terrible. Here’s the list in alphabetical order (I was planning on rating them, but I never got around to it):

1. A Dangerous Method (2011)
2. A Night to Remember (1958)
3. A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
4. Albert Nobbs (2012)
5. Antichrist (2009)
6. Argo (2012)
7. Autumn Sonata (1978)
8. Band of Outsiders (1964)
9. Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
10. Beauty and the Beast (1946)
11. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
12. Bigger Than Life (1956)
13. Black Narcissus (1947)
14. Blow Out (1981)
15. Breathless (1960)
16. Cabaret (1972)
17. Casablanca (1942)
18. Charade (1963)
19. Charulata (1964)
20. City Lights (1931)
21. Cloud Atlas (2012)
22. Creative Nonfiction (2009)
23. Cronos (1993)
24. Cul-de-Sac (1966)
25. Days of Heaven (1978)
26. Diabolique (1955)
27. Dial M for Murder (1954)
28. Django Unchained (2012)
29. Dr. Jack (1922)
30. Dr. No (1962)
31. East of Eden (1955)
32. Eating Raoul (1982)
33. Europa (1991)
34. Eyes Without a Face (1960)
35. Fantasia (1940)
36. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
37. Fish Tank (2009)
38. Following (1999)
39. Foreign Correspondent (1940)
40. Fox and His Friends (1975)
41. Funny Girl (1968)
42. Gomorrah (2008)
43. Green for Danger (1946)
44. Harvest (2011)
45. House (1977)
46. Howards End (1992)
47. I Know Where I’m Going! (1945)
48. Inception (2010)
49. Island of Lost Souls (1932)
50. Juno (2007)
51. La Jetée (1962)
52. Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
53. Life of Pi (2012)
54. Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
55. Lonesome (1928)
56. Looper (2012)
57. M (1931)
58. Modern Times (1936)
59. Much Ado About Nothing (2012)
60. Mulholland Drive (2001)
61. My Life as a Dog (1985)
62. My Own Private Idaho (1991)
63. Naked (1993)
64. Naked Lunch (1991)
65. Notorious (1946)
66. On the Waterfront (1954)
67. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
68. Paris, Texas (1984)
69. Paths of Glory (1957)
70. Peeping Tom (1960)
71. Pina (2011)
72. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
73. Pride and Prejudice (2005)
74. Psycho (1960)
75. Rashomon (1950)
76. Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
77. Repo Man (1984)
78. Repulsion (1965)
79. Requiem for a Dream (2000)
80. Revanche (2008)
81. Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
82. Rushmore (1998)
83. Saboteur (1942)
84. Safety Last! (1923)
85. Sans Soleil (1983)
86. Seven Samurai (1954)
87. Shame (2011)
88. Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
89. Skyfall (2012)
90. Sleeping Beauty (1959)
91. Something Wild (1986)
92. Spellbound (1945)
93. Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)
94. Stoker (2013)
95. Summer with Monika (1953)
96. Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)
97. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
98. Tangled (2010)
99. The Blob (1958)
100. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
101. The Devil’s Backbone (2001)
102. The Double Life of Véronique (1991)
103. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
104. The Godfather (1972)
105. The Gold Rush (1925)
106. The Graduate (1967)
107. The Great Dictator (1940)
108. The Great Gatsby (2013)
109. The Help (2011)
110. The Housemaid (1960)
111. The Ice Storm (1997)
112. The Kid with a Bike (2011)
113. The Killing (1956)
114. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
115. The Last Emperor (1987)
116. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
117. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
118. The Lion King (1994)
119. The Little Mermaid (1989)
120. The Magician (1958)
121. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
122. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
123. The Matrix (1999)
124. The Night of the Hunter (1955)
125. The Phantom Carriage (1921)
126. The Princess Diaries (2001)
127. The Queen (2006)
128. The Reader (2008)
129. The Red Shoes (1948)
130. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
131. The Seventh Seal (1957)
132. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965)
133. The Tempest (2010)
134. The Thin Red Line (1998)
135. The Tree of Life (2011)
136. The Virgin Spring (1960)
137. The 39 Steps (1935)
138. Throne of Blood (1957)
139. Tiny Furniture (2010)
140. To Catch a Thief (1955)
141. Tokyo Story (1953)
142. Vivre Sa Vie (1962)
143. WALL·E (2008)
144. Weekend (1967)
145. Weekend (2011)
146. Wild Strawberries (1957)
147. Wreck-It Ralph (2012)
148. 8 1/2 (1963)
149. 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)
150. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Out of these 150 films, I had already seen 39 of them; so, as you can see, I saw quite a few films that I had never seen before. All in all, I highly enjoyed most of them, and it was a fun little “experiment” to do, but I probably won’t ever have enough time to watch so many films in such a small period of time.

Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman Blu-ray – Individual Covers

The folks at Blu-ray.com have released the cover art for all 25 films that will be included in the Zatôichi: The Blind Swordsman Blu-ray Box Set, which will street on November 26th. Multiple pictures ahead:

Again, I’m not gonna go for this box set because I’ve never seen any of these films (though many are streaming on Hulu Plus, but I have bigger fish to fry), but to the fans who are this must be a really exciting announcement. Each of these covers were designed by a different artist which I think is pretty cool. The set will have 9 Blu-rays and 18 DVDs (meaning that there will probably be about 3 films per disc). The MSRP is a staggering $224.95, and Criterion has the set up for pre-order for $179.96.

Happy Birthday, Hitch!

Alfred Hitchcock is one of my absolute favorite directors (along with Wes Anderson), and today just happens to be his birthday. If he was alive today, Hitch would be 114 years young, and probably still making wonderful motion pictures. I knew about Hitch for as long as I can remember, but I hadn’t ever seen one of his films until last fall (sad, but true). I saw Psycho in my Cinema Studies class and fell in love instantly. Since then, I’ve watched 15 of his other films and have loved each one of them–some more than others, but I’ve still enjoyed them all. Psycho remains my favorite, but I also thoroughly love The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest, Notorious, and Spellbound. Yeah, I know, there are some of the so-called “essential” films that aren’t on that list (Vertigo, Rear Window, The Birds), but that’s okay; that’s why watching films is subjective. I just happen to prefer some of his other films. That’s not to say that they are bad (which would be blasphemous, because they are truly great pieces of film), but I simply don’t like them as much as some others.

But, anyway, happy birthday, Mr. Hitchcock. You’re endlessly inspiring. I feel like there is so much more to be said than just this little snippet, but I’m at a loss at the moment. I am watching Psycho tonight in honor of his birthday.

Here’s a list of his films that I’ve seen (in alphabetical order):

Dial M for Murder
Foreign Correspondent
North by Northwest
Notorious
Psycho
Rear Window
Rebecca
Saboteur
Spellbound
The Birds
The Lady Vanishes
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
The 39 Steps
To Catch a Thief
Vertigo

And, here’s the famous Shower Scene from Psycho. It’s quite famous, but I urge you not to watch it if you haven’t seen the film yet. This scene was the reason why Hitch was so notoriously stringent about not letting people into the film after it had already started.

“Mary Poppins” – 50th Anniversary Blu-ray Trailer

Take a look at the trailer for the 50th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray trailer for Walt Disney’s 1964 film (which, according to the trailer, defines Disney Magic) Mary Poppins.

Again, this streets on December 10, 2013. I’ll keep you all updated when more information comes along my way.

Monsters University – Blu-ray Details

High Def Disc News has provided new details for Pixar’s 2013 film Monsters University. A prequel to the successful Monsters, INC. (2001), Monsters University takes a look at the college days of some of our favorite monstrous characters. The Blu-ray, which streets on October 29th, will include the following:

Tech specs for the release include full 1080p Hi-Def video in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 sound. The bonus materials set to be included on the release are listed below:

• Campus Life – What’s it like being on a production crew at Pixar? Get a look at a day in the life of the “Monsters University” crew through their own eyes.
• Story School – This documentary examines the challenges of creating a prequel as well as themes that run through the story, and the change in focus from Sulley to Mike. We’ll also look at how gags are developed – from writing jokes to brainstorming a million ideas, only 5% of which actually end up in the movie.
• Scare Games – At Pixar, we play hard while we work. The same people who keep the film production moving – producers, managers, coordinators and artists – are also the ones who bring spirit and excitement to some of our extracurricular activities. We check out the MU production teams as they go head to head in the mostly playful Pixar Scare Games competitions.
• Welcome to MU – Sets aren’t just buildings, they are the worlds our characters live in and explore. This look at the Monsters University campus and its development is told from the perspective of the artists who created each piece of the campus from the architecture to the ivy leaves.
• Music Appreciation – Randy Newman’s scores are a mainstay of Pixar films, and this documentary will give you a privileged look at his creative process. We follow the “Monsters University” scoring process from spotting to writing and on to the scoring session. including special college-themed recording sessions.
• Scare Tactics – Animators are actors who digitally bring the characters to life. In this look at how the MU animation team worked, you’ll see their process of how they channeled their own monster-selves and created moments on screen that were really funny, really scary and also really serious, sometimes all at the same time.
• Color and Light – How can a single painting set the tone for an entire scene? We’ll look at the creation of the colorscripts and how they were realized technically in the final film. Along with the process, this piece explores the many layers of technical innovation required to produce such a naturalistic feel.
• Paths to Pixar – MU Edition – When one door closes, sometimes another door opens – one with an even more exciting opportunity behind it. Members of the MU crew tell their own compelling backstories and share the challenges they overcame along their paths to Pixar.
• Furry Monsters: A Technical Retrospective – Explore the difficulties in creating characters that are 20 years younger with tools that are 10 years more advanced in this contrasting look at the differing technical challenges that arose when making “Monsters, Inc.,” and “Monsters University.”
• Deleted Scenes – Four separate scenes – “Rivalry,” “Recon,” “Movie Night,” and “Drama Class” – are highlighted with an introduction from director Dan Scanlon.
• The Blue Umbrella” – This animated short film from Pixar Animation Studios, directed by Saschka Unseld and produced by Marc Greenberg, played in theaters in front of “Monsters University.” “The Blue Umbrella” tells the story of an evening commute in which the rain starts to fall and the city comes alive to the sound of dripping rain pipes, whistling awnings and gurgling gutters. And in the midst, two umbrellas—one blue, one not—fall eternally in love.
• Additional Bonus Features – Audio Commentary, Promo Picks, College Campaign, Theatrical Campaign, Set Flythroughs, Art Gallery and more!

I’m excited that we’re still seeing such a great effort put into the home releases of Pixar’s films. Now, I didn’t have the chance to see the film, but I do quite like Monsters, INC. and I’m looking forward to finally seeing this prequel. The film will come in three versions: 2-Disc (Blu-ray and DVD), 3-Disc (2 Blu-rays and DVD), and 4-Disc (3D Blu-ray, 2 Blu-rays, and DVD). The last two versions also come with a Digital Copy of the film. I will be picking up the 3-Disc version as I have no use for the 3D disc and I actually prefer the cover art over the 3D version’s. Here’s a look at the cover art for all three Blu-ray versions, along with pre-order links:

2-Disc Blu-ray & DVD

3-Disc Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy

4-Disc 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy