I’ve always believed that Allen’s great masterpiece Manhattan is far better than any version of Lolita is- be it the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film, the 1997 Adrian Lyne film, or even the original Nabokov novel. Mariel Hemingway’s Tracy is far better and more realistically written than any version of Lolita ever has been, and the whole story is much funnier, wittier, more entertaining, not to mention significantly deeper than any version of Lolita has been, as well. That’s because Allen has a far better and deeper understanding of people than Nabokov was capable of, and Allen is better able to convey it...narratively and humorously.
Of course, the final nail that Manhattan has over Lolita is actually somewhat obvious...Gershwin! Allen’s use of Gershwin creates a certain romantic poesy that no version of Lolita has matched. Perhaps if Kubrick had made it post-2001: A Space Odyssey, he would’ve done it. In fact, Kubrick himself openly regretted making it when he did- wishing he’d made it after the Production Code had fallen, so that he could get more risqué material in there. It would’ve been a better film, as long as he’d still cast Peter Sellers.
Speaking of which, the only advantage that any version of Lolita has ever had over Manhattan is, in fact, Peter Sellers. Sellers was probably the funniest film actor in history, and no one in Manhattan can match him for flat-out hilarity and laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Sellers is the only reason Lolita is NOT Kubrick’s worst film- that’d be Barry Lyndon. James Mason was also terrific, but his performance was dramatic, and as dramatically great as he is, there’s not enough material for him to elevate it. Comedy can often do far more to enliven a dull story. Mason’s was a great performance searching for a better film. Sellers’ was a great performance enlivening a wae
Here’s the famously great opening:
Here’s the famously great ending:
And here’s Peter Sellers:
