MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > HIDDEN MESSAGE OF LOLITA'S ENDING

HIDDEN MESSAGE OF LOLITA'S ENDING


Kubrick's Lolita has a hidden genius ending that highly contrasts the appeared ending. The ending of Lolita appears to be the same beginning scene of Humbert killing Quilty but ending with a cut after Humbert calls for Quilty's name. However, the hidden fact is that the beginning scene and the ending scene are not the same. The two scenes were filmed differently, watch the film again if you are not convinced. Kubrick could have easily copied and pasted the beginning scene to the end and cut it when Humbert calls for Quilty's name, but he doesn't. Kubrick uses two different scenes to show one dream and one reality. The beginning scene of Humbert killing Quilty is a future dream of Humbert's and the ending scene is the reality. The ending leaves Humbert without Lolita and without finding Quilty. It is deeply beautiful. My explanation to why Humbert was dreaming in the beginning scene is below.

If you analyze the film, you will see Humbert basically act the same scene out but in reality he doesn't. In the ending scene the chair Quilty was sitting in is covered in a different fashion, he doesn't string the harp and he calls out Quilty's name at different timings. First, the covering of the chair is significant because the beginning scene can clearly make out a body and also has a beer bottle resting on the Quilty’s head. In contrast, the ending scene has a sheet on the chair that can not clearly make out an entire body and has a beer bottle resting at the lap of the chair. This shows that Quilty was not present at the end, which is supported by the beer bottle clearly showing Quilty's body. Second, the stringing of the harp in the beginning scene, in comparison with not stringing it in the end, hints that Humbert is in a dream. Third, the difference in the timing of the shot is significant because Kubrick carefully edits the ending frame so that Humbert is covering up the chair Quility is supposed to be sitting in and fades out the film to an end. This is significant because Kubrick is trying to subliminally show the audience that Humbert did not find Quilty.

The epilogue does say Humbert dies during the trial of his murder of Quilty, but I believe Kubrick puts that in there to misdirect the audience to the actual ending. He is a genius. The epilogue is read over the shot painting that he supposedly shot Quilty through. This is really important because the same painting was shown in both the beginning and ending scene as Humbert enters the house. Also the painting represents Lolita who is a liar and Kubrick is trying to tell the intelligent audience that he is lying about Humbert killing Quilty. In addition, the beginning scene is followed by Humbert narrating, showing the beginning of reality. The ending scene leaves Humbert calling for Quilty but getting no response, showing that he did not end up finding Quilt and obviously did not end up with Lolita.

reply

yes I noticed those same differences but was not able to come to any conclusions

I also tried to trace the painting but could not - how do you conclude it is of Lolita?

also what is significance of shooting Q through the painting?

could this theory of yours explain the fact the number plate and fog light on car keep changing

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

The painting is quite easy to trace. When Humbert walks into Quilty's house it is sideways and laying on the ground. The same painting was upstairs where Humbert shoots Quilty. What are the chances that Quilty has two of the same painting, none, because Quilty is wealthy and would have one of the original painting in stock. The painting is represents Lolita because the cause of Humbert's shooting Quilty was Lolita. And the significance of shooting Quilty through this painting is to show that the painting was not real and hence the shooting was not real. Can you explain this change in the number plate and fog light?

reply

around time of puncture and right up to stop at Lol's home, it keeps changing

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

The movie expressed the idea of "normalism" pretty well. It was only fair if Lolita was really the only one left alive, with the painting ruined, as a symbol of the errored image of youth in general, and hers' specifically. In the crying scene of HH near the end, she spoke of things happening "naturally", implying she and HH can't be together when she was then already a grown-up. It's ironic and comedic, tragic at times when you think about it. The two "normal" guys here were HH and Quilty, to me they just served as some kind of ironic figures to support the film's twisted theme portraited in an overally joyful and comical atmostphere, they died so that Lolita could live freely as a result of their game (hence, the painting with holes). I don't know, that was my take, the ending being filmed differently could be just another continuity errors. I noticed one when I saw the movie too, the car at the filling station was white but in the next scene it was clearly a different, dark-colored car. I think Kubrick didn't want to do that cut & paste thingy, he generally shot a lot of takes anyway.

----------
My Top Animated: http://www.imdb.com/list/zyDiSPMGtuM/

reply

the car at the filling station was white but in the next scene it was clearly a different, dark-colored car
---
I think you got the wrong cars

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

Look for the scene again. It's even mentioned in here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/trivia?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf

----------
My Top Animated: http://www.imdb.com/list/zyDiSPMGtuM/

reply

they died so that Lolita could live freely as a result of their game

---

Lol dies in childbirth before Humbert

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

Heh I haven't read the book. From what I've heard, the movie version is pretty different from it anyway, so maybe Kubrick was trying to tell us something else with this.

----------
My Top Animated: http://www.imdb.com/list/zyDiSPMGtuM/

reply

Ehhh... I don't know, man. I think you're looking for something that isn't there. Plenty of films show the same scene twice with notable differences/continuity errors between them. By the same logic, the beginning scene of Pulp Fiction is also a dream...

reply

Ehhh... I don't know, man. I think you're looking for something that isn't there.


Haha yes, I'm inclined to agree. I think the fact that the epilogue refers to a trial is fairly self-explanatory..

reply

Normally I'd agree, but Kubrick was an absolute control freak about his sets and the most minor details. Nothing is a coincidence or accident.

reply

Then why when they pull in to the service station, is it one with only a glassed-in office on the left, and a service bay on the right--the place for a restroom. Just wide open wall that raises where people can drive cars in for servicing.

Yet next thing, Humbert is in a restroom that cannot be there, looking out a big window that isn't there, toward the left (facing it) side of the station, at Lolita talking to the person in the white car? I thought it was continuity/goof but if it isn't, Humbert is watching her from a place that cannot exist as she talks to someone besides the person in the 2-tone white top, black bottom chevrolet? Instead it's an all-white sedan (Humbert drives an all-white station wagon...) Are white cars good guys, the partially black car a bad guy? A partially bad guy? What color car hit Charlotte?

Where were you guys when Kubrick was still alive? ;)

reply

That seems like a pointless piece of misdirection of the audience which doesn't add anything to the film, if this is true that is. If the epilogue was added against his wishes before the film was released it makes sense, otherwise changing the ending was utterly pointless.

reply

The survival of Quilty adds nothing to the film?

reply

Well kind of suggesting the survival of Quilty before having an epilogue declaring him dead doesn't add to the film.

reply

and I think this is just another case of *beep* up continuity.
it still happens these days, especially did so half a century ago...

reply

Humbert does play the harp in the ending, it's just that there is music in the soundtrack instead of the ambient sounds. Frankly, you're reading way too much into things.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

reply

I don't buy it.

The movie's story is the same as the book's. There are some changes, of course, as there are when any movie is made into a book. Most are minor matters of detail. The only significant one was Lolita's age. The reason for that change has been discussed elsewhere.

They didn't change the whole plot of the story.

reply

There are a ton of major differences. The fact that the epilogue doesn't tell us that Lolita is dead by the end of the novel is a major one. That Humbert was no longer attracted to her when he found her with her husband is a huge one as well. The novel completely undermines that this was some true/timeless love he had for her.

==================================
Fire Commissioner Cover-Up Immediately!

reply

I do not have the DVD so cannot look at those details but would expect continuity to be a possible explanation. There seems little point in Kubrick misdirecting the audience by adding the epilogue. I expect it is more likely he wants the name “Quilty” to be the first word and the last word in the film…as a reference to the novel which had “Lolita” as the first and last word in the book. Taking the ending scene any farther would have involved the added dialogue. In the novel (I have not read) I understand there is a forward that explains Humbert has died in jail allowing readers know in advance of the killing. Kubrick cleverly opens the story with the killing as a way to provide the films viewers with a similar advance knowledge. Thus "Quilty" becomes the opening/closing line.

reply

Could putting Quilty at the beginning and end of the movie be nothing more than the director assuring himself that audiences will for sure pay attention to Quilty whenever he is in the lives of Charlotte and Lolita? We noticed him at the dance, was it? at the hotel, at the school. I knew Quilty was the German psychiatrist By starting with him, everyone has followed and formed informed opinions of his role, culpability, or not--no more explanations necessary--because he was stuck not explaining much, since censors limited him so much.

The weird thing that strikes me is the continuity errors from opening to ending scenes....someone on another thread spoke of the painting in Catherine's house? Did I misunderstand that? That might confirm that it represented Lolita, (perhaps each person who loved Lolita had their own painting of her, signifying their own personal image of what Lolita was to them--and they had to possess/own that image. And Humbert had to kill his idea/image of her to kill Quilty--or he was willing to do so...crazy enough to do so....?

The service station location scout may have been lazy or sick? Or a new scene added of Humbert watching Lolita ...... The cars switching make no sense.

reply