MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > Lolitas husband Dick

Lolitas husband Dick

posted 10 years ago by SilentNightDeadlyNight2807
17 replies | jump to latest

I was watching one of the last scenes of Lolita and I noticed how similar Lolitas husband Dick is to Norman Bates from Psycho. They look the same and speak the same..am I wrong?

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

maybe but better question is Humbert poked her several hundred times and she never got pregnant from him but does from Bates.

was he firing blanks?

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

[–] SilentNightDeadlyNight2807 10 years ago

You don't know that Humbert was 'poking' Lolita. There was never a sex scene between them.

"I don't set a fancy table, but the kitchen's awful homey."

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"You don't know that Humbert was 'poking' Lolita".

You can't be serious...

And that Dick guy looked nothing like Norman Bates, really - the only similarity's that both had dark hair.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] SilentNightDeadlyNight2807 10 years ago

He looked pretty similar to him, but he acted almost exactly like him, same voice and everything.

"I don't set a fancy table, but the kitchen's awful homey."

[–] aacardenasr 10 years ago

Sex scenes are not shown but implied!

[–] Lincbond442 10 years ago

Which is so much more effective and tasteful than the gratuitous "you can figure this out on your own so we'll show you" scenes found in most movies of this nature today.

"Don't tell me your little problems son, all I'm interested in is results."

[–] pc-daisy 10 years ago

Of course not at that time of filming. It is impossible to view these films through a 21st C filter.

[–] christomacin 9 years ago

The scene in the hotel room where Lolita and Humbert are on the bed is where "it" happened between them. Notice how "the other shoe drops". The camera pans down to her feet as she kicks off her other shoe. That's as close as this film did, or probably even could, imply a sexual act between them in an early 1960's movie.

[–] Goodbye_from_Fox_In_A_Box 10 years ago

I thought he was played by Robert Urich.

Ay me, sad hours seem long

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

I totally read your thread title wrong and spilt my tea.

[–] bobby_nynex 9 years ago

why was he deaf in one ear?

https://youtu.be/93sGUFpVxFI

[–] scndform 9 years ago

Lo's husband was a veteran of the Second World War and lost his hearing while serving in Italy... during the Battle of Anzio if I remember correctly.

[–] bobby_nynex 9 years ago

yes but how does that add anything to the story. whats the symbolism of it.

https://youtu.be/93sGUFpVxFI

[–] scndform 9 years ago

I may be way off here, but perhaps Richard's deafness is a metaphor for his ignorance of having never heard the true relationship between Lo and Humbert. All Lo's husband has heard about Humbert is that he is Lo's "Dad," so he was "deaf" to the truth.

something interesting about his name Schiller- a "schill" is a name for someone who leads another person into an adverse situation. Lo and her husband were desperately trying to go to Alaska where he had some kind of a job waiting for him. A short time after they arrived Lo died in childbirth so I suppose it could be said metaphorically that her husband led her to her death.

[–] TequilaMockingbird5150 8 years ago

And the name but it is slightly off. A shill is the word that you are thinking about.

The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Samuel Beckett

[–] scndform 8 years ago

Schill spelled with a "c" is Scottish. I'll be darned though if I can remember where I found the definition I listed above. - I spent an hour and a half trying to locate it again, but no luck.

Nabokov loved plays on words and names. The novel is littered with them throughout.

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 9 years ago

I saw the same exact thing--Norman Bates! Had to check closely to see it was not Anthony Perkins. I saw the casting as a super sincere and sweet guy at the time, but now that I think about it, did she marry a total psycho? WOW! I bet that was Kubrick's message. Great catch!