Lolita review

Number 600 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick’s black-comedy, psychological thriller ‘Lolita.’ 

English academic Humbert Humbert (James Mason) arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, to spend the summer there before staring work. He soon marries his landlady Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) but then becomes infatuated with her fourteen-year-old daughter Dolores “Lolita” Haze (Sue Lyons.)

This is a film that needs no introduction. It, and Vladamir Nabokov’s book it was based upon, are highly controversial due to their themes of paedophilia. The film was even considered ‘unfilmable,’ so I was surprised by its underwhelming nature. Admittedly, I haven’t read the book nor am I fully familiar with the story, but I was expecting something more lurid.

Compared to modern-day films, Lolita was incredibly tame. Granted, Kubrick was up against the strict production code and studio restrictions meaning he had to tone down the erotic aspects of Humbert and Lolita’s relationship, but I was still expecting something more. I understand that Kubrick couldn’t be explicit, but I thought there would be more subtle references to the film’s darker themes.

Perhaps I’ve been misled by the film’s sensational reputation. If I had been more familiar with the original story, I would know differently, but I can only judge the film based on what I’ve seen.

The characterisation of Humbert and Lolita also surprised me. Mason played Humbert as a retiring and reserved academic, which he was, but he seemed an unlikely candidate to be attracted to his step-daughter. I understand that depicting him as an unshaven, over-weight slob in a singlet would be a cliché, but I did not find Mason to be a believable nonce.

To get round the censors, Kubrick upped Lolita’s age from twelve, as she originally was in the book (I know that much at least) to fourteen. Sue Lyon was fourteen, but was cast, because she looked older. The producers wanted audiences to believe that Lolita could be a sex object. I can understand why they would change her age, but I don’t agree with deliberately casting an actress who looks older than her years.

It changed the dynamic of her character and the dynamic of her relationship with Humbert. Compared from fourteen to twelve, you’re slightly more mature and aware of your surroundings and of your own sexual desires. This added sentience transformed Lolita from an innocent victim to even an unrealising participant of Humbert’s predatory behaviour.

But as I’ve said ad nauseum, I am not familiar with the original text, so I could very well be mis-reading the film. I do think that my opinion might be different if I had read the book first, but based on what I’ve seen, I wasn’t a fan of Lolita.

The Killing review

 Number 244 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 1956 film noir 'The Killing.'

Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) is a career criminal planning one last heist before settling down with his lover Fay (Coleen Gray.) He assembles a crack-crew of five other criminals to rob the local racetrack.

Sadly, the Killing was a film that suffered badly from unwanted studio interference. Studio execs demanded Kubrick include narration, which only functioned to give exposition. Or rather, to beat the audience around the head with exposition. It really slowed up what should have been a fast-paced crime-thriller. It was an unnecessary inclusion.

Otherwise, this would have been a very interesting film noir, even if it didn't bring anything new to the genre. It has the same morally-grey characters you would see in the Big Sleep, but without the overly-convoluted plot. Yes, the Killing employs a non-linear narrative, but I don't think this particularly complicated things.

The Killing also had the old familiar trope of the femme fatale: Sherry (Marie Windsor) wife of one of the gang who is plotting to double-cross him and run off with his share. And, of course, you had the low-key lighting and endless supply of men smoking cigarettes.

Yes, the fight scenes looked very silly, but the Killing was an interesting watch. It was one of Kubrick's earliest films, but also one one of his most influential, influencing the likes of Quentin Tarantino. It's just a shame that the studio couldn't keep their grubby hands away from Kubrick's work.

Barry Lyndon review

 Number 228 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 1975 epic historical drama 'Barry Lyndon.'

Based on William Makepeace Thackery's novel 'the Luck of Barry Lyndon,' Barry Lyndon (Ryan O'Neal) follows the eponymous Irish rogue as he wiles his way into the upper echelons of society through marrying the rich widow Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) and ingratiating himself into her family and life.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. As you may have gathered from some of my other reviews, I neither care for epics or period dramas of which Barry Lyndon was both. They're vague, overly-long and tedious. They're so boring. Yet I found Barry Lyndon to be very watchable. 

Did it need to be three hours long? Absolutely not. The pacing was incredibly slow, which was hardly helped by how the accompanying musical score was slow, serene and happy. That hardly helped to ratchet up the tension. Plus there were lots of shots of the characters sitting around doing very little.

But despite all that I thoroughly enjoyed Barry Lyndon. As a character, Lyndon is pretty despicable. He is charming on the surface, but he also has a darker side which regularly comes out when he doesn't get his way. However, he is still interesting to watch. I was intrigued to keep watching just to see whether he gets his just desserts or not, which *spoiler alert* he inevitably does. O'Neal made him a charismatic and three-dimensional character. It worked well enough to stop him from becoming a cliched cartoon villain.

Another reason period-dramas don't work for me is either the lack of stakes or stakes being so artificially produced that they become over-blown and contrived. Neither of these was the case with Barry Lyndon. There was plenty of drama. It was presented in a natural and authentic way, as we see Lyndon navigate obstacle after obstacle. He goes from duelling a rival to fighting for the English in the Seven-Year war to fighting for the Prussians in the Seven-Year war to becoming a gambler and hustler to marrying the widowed Lady Lyndon and then coming full-circle by duelling his stepson Lord Bullingdon. It is quite a journey.

Barry Lyndon really surprised me. I went into the film absolutely dreading it, but it was thoroughly entertaining. I guess you can't judge a film by its genre classification.

Paths of Glory Review

Number 56 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's powerful anti-war film Paths of Glory starring Kirk Douglas.

Paths of Glory is set in WW1 France.  General Mireau-a General Haigesque character, who lacks in any type of military strategy decides that the best way to take a German anthill is to throw waves of men at it.  When machine-gun fire stops their advance and they begin to retreat, General Mireau (George Macready) orders for his own artillery to open fire on them to stop them from retreating.  Thankfully, the artillery commander staunchly refuses to in the first of many acts of bravery.  To disguise his own incompetence, he puts three innocent soldiers on trial for cowardice to disguise his own in competence.  In their trial, their commander Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) fights to acquit them of the accusations.

Cowardice is the central theme of this film. Kubrick's exploration of this theme is the key reason why this film works so well.  Paths of Glory engages sensitively with the condition known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Shellshock.  During WW1, it was not recognised as a medical condition and those soldiers who suffered from it were accused of cowardice.  Some were tried and executed.  Unfortunately, the same thing happens in this film.  When General Mireau inspects the men, one of them breaks down upon realising that he he may never see his wife again.  Mireau immediately demands that this coward be removed from his army.  This was a subtle, but powerful way of engaging with a controversial subject.

Out of all the characters, Colonel Dax is undoubtedly the bravest.  He is most privy to General Mireau's incompetence.  When the three soldiers are on trial for cowardice, Dax fights tooth and nail to have them acquitted, despite the obvious bias of the court.  Douglas' passionate portrayal of Dax contrasted well with Macready's malevolent portrayal of Mireau.  It also showed that in war, there are always heroes and villains on both sides.  One man's good is another man's evil.

The film builds towards a bittersweet conclusion.  Due to the corrupt nature of the court, the three men are sentenced to execution.  Firstly, seeing the three men's reaction their fate was very interesting.  One of them breaks down in tears, another faces it stoically and the third takes his frustration out on the reverend who has come to read them their last rites.  These images are made all of the more powerful, due to how unjust they are.  None of them are cowards.  They just have the misfortune to serve under a general who would rather execute his own men than admit that he is wrong.  And this is exactly what happens.  I was half-expecting some deux ex machina to save all three men, but I'm glad it didn't.  It made their deaths all the more tragic.

The film's most poignant image comes at its ending.  The night before Lax's company are due to go back to the front, they are all gathered in a tavern laughing, drinking and watching a stand-up comedian.  The comedian brings out a pretty German girl leading to heckling, cat-calls and jeering.  For a second, I was scared that the girl would be taken advantage off.  However, what actually happened was far more powerful.  The girl started singing a German ballad and one by one the soldiers start singing with her.  This is the strongest example of the collective identity that soldiers share, as well as the loyalty that have towards each other.

All in all, this is a powerful film that is told succinctly.  It is understated, but heavy-hitting. It engages well with extremely sensitive subjects.  However, most importantly, it explore the separation  that exists between a man's courage and his cowardice.