MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > Lolita - a great movie villain

Lolita - a great movie villain


Humbert is a grubby perv and insanely possessive, and Quilty is a creepy lecherous freak, but both men are driven to madness by their insatiable lust for Lolita, who flirts outrageously with Humbert, leads him on, cheats on him, torments him with lies, and when his love is at its peak and he has been drained of everything else in his life - she stamps on his heart, enjoying the pain she has inflicted with a truly sociopathic glee.

Then she has the gall to ask him for money so that she can fuck, marry and build a family with another man. She chides him for crying from heartbreak as he hands over all his worth, her eyes beaming with joy at the bounty as the man’s heart rips in two - an affliction that will later kill him in prison.

What makes the film great is how all the characters are predatory and also victims, but I didn’t expect the film to be a psychological horror with a stone cold temptress who destroys men as efficiently as Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct.

reply

Are you victimising Lolita's abusers?

reply

They don’t need to be ‘victimised’, they are objectively victims of Lolita’s cruelty.

reply

She's a teenager, you incel! You expect her to be loyal to her abusers?

reply

Hard to pick which is the most moronic assumption in your post. Yes, she’s a teenager - so what? She’s still a great movie villain.

Her ‘abusers’ were also her victims, she destroyed them through temptation and calculated manipulation. The fact that they were morally dubious doesn’t detract from her villainy.

Who on earth suggested that she ‘be loyal to’ them?

reply

Temptation? Manipulation? You're a pedo incel that hates underage girls for rejecting you.

reply

You’re now projecting your powerful sexual desires toward children onto others.

Try to stay on topic and keep your paedophile fantasies out of this discussion. Lolita uses ‘temptation’ and ‘manipulation’ to destroy her victims, yes - did you not see the film?

reply

"I know you are but what am I?"

You're a waste of time, Donnie.

reply

Who are you quoting?

reply

Himself from a session with his shrink.

reply

But they *deserved* to be destroyed!

reply

They fell into her very deliberate traps. Should they have? No. But she played them from the start, and destroyed them for pleasure.

reply

[deleted]

She got revenge on the people who ruined her life. Nothing to disapprove of there, when John Wick does the same thing people cheer and applaud!

Anyone who perceived this situation differently is either a perv who fears retribution, or (duh) a contrarian troll.

reply

John Wick doesn’t bait people then sadistically torture them, visibly gleeful at their demise, so your comparison doesn’t work.

Neither does your false ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a pervert/troll’ dichotomy. It’s juvenile and obnoxious.

Finally, most people agree with my position, so if anyone’s a ‘contrarian troll’ here it’s you. Check yourself for projection.

Grow up then return to this discussion and try again.

reply

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the internet troll!

Sitting in his momma's basement all day, unwashed and deathly pale except for the Cheeto dust on his fingers, alternately chuckling because he's sure he's SO much smarter than anyone else, and sobbing because teen anime girls aren't real.

reply

You're mistaken. Whatever Drooch is in other threads, he's on point about this movie. Lolita is a manipulative asshole who cold-heartedly toys with men. The fact that she's a teen and cannot be held responsible or that her suitors are way out of line persueing her at all is not changing that fact. Stick to John Wick.

reply

Oh for fuck's sake, you think that young girls should be NICE TO THE MEN WHO RAPE, EXPLOIT, AND/OR KIDNAP THEM?????

Get a fucking grip!

reply

You haven't watched the movie nor read the book, that much is obvious. And leave your fantasies in your head, please. They disgust.

reply

I'm going to tell your mother than you've been using your rent-free home in her basement to post pro-statutory-rape bullshit on the internet.

No more free rent! No more PBJs on demand! NO MORE WIFI AND NO MORE ANIME FANTASY NYMPHETS!!!!!

reply

You should quit while you're behind. You're making a fool of yourself.

reply

WOW, this is an extremely telling comment that you forgot to delete.

reply

What are you talking about?

reply

The only one I see acting like a fool was the original poster and you it seems. Otter is 100% right.

They aren't just trolls but horrible people that sympathize with criminals. Shame on you if you're in agreement with the op

reply

Very true. This dildo is a clueless pervert. I’ve discovered the origin of his name: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/30/what-is-an-otter-the-gay-tribe-for-lean-guys-with-a-bit-of-scruff/

reply

Spot on.

reply

Good analysis by Drooch. Regardless of her "victimhood", Lolita is a sociopath. Her age is irrelevant. She'll grow to adulthood and middle age still using men to satisfy her sick emotional sadism.

reply

Exactly, this is even shown at the end where she says Quilty is the only man she was ever really into. ie not the husband/baby father she ends the film with.

reply

Bollocks.
You cannot rape (a child in this case) and then, "regardless" of this little element, judge the victim.
Her status has been drastically and violently altered (often for the worse) by your actions.

You cannot beat up a puppy and train him to be a fight dog and then, "regardless" of this little element, call it a violent dog. You made him that, he is just adapting and reacting.

That's why there are laws in place against pedophiles and animal abusers: it's a heinous crime and it's affecting the victims deeply.

reply

She was not raped.

reply

You have zero legal knowledge, clearly.

reply

At a stretch you could argue it was statutory rape, but even then she led them on entirely, for her own sadistic pleasure.

reply

She could have been spread eagle butt naked in the middle of the street, if an adult touches her inappropriately he is still a molester, if he touches her with his dick he is still a rapist.
Is that too difficult a LAW to understand?

reply

I see you keep your romance strictly transactional, Heisenberg. Queue Jyi Peuong.

reply

Fuck are you talking about?

reply

Are you saying that if a 17 year-old woman lies spread-eagle in the Californian street and begs to be fucked, that if a man prods her in the forehead with his flaccid dick… he has raped her?

reply

Precisely. Not that difficult.

reply

It’s ‘difficult’ for anyone who understands what rape is.

reply

You clearly do not.

reply

I do, and the meaning of ‘rape’ is not a flaccid dick prodding someone’s forehead, as you would have people believe.

reply

A flaccid dick prodding someone's forehead would probably be just molestation, not rape. If he puts the dick anywhere inside, it's rape. I'm not a technician, I think that's how it is.
But both situations constitute a sexual crime against one victim, there is no doubts nor grey area there.

reply

Well that’s quite a turnaround from a few posts ago when you stated it was ‘precisely’ rape for a man to prod the forehead of a 17 year old woman with his flaccid knob.

reply

No it's not. I just noticed that you were focusing on your bullshit hypothetical prodding of the forehead, whatever the fuck that is, rather than anything realistic or related to this movie. So I specified the difference between rape and molestation, which btw is slight.
At any rate, the point is still: She could have been spread eagle butt naked in the middle of the street, HER ACTIONS HAVE ZERO VALUE SINCE SHE IS A MINOR. ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION IS ILLEGAL.
Is that too difficult a LAW to understand?

reply

You did turnaround. Here’s the original question:

Are you saying that if a 17 year-old woman lies spread-eagle in the Californian street and begs to be fucked, that if a man prods her in the forehead with his flaccid dick… he has raped her?


and here’s your answer:

Precisely. Not that difficult.


Given that you no longer consider that scenario to be rape you’ve made a huge turnaround.

Now, as for whether prodding the spread eagle and begging for it 17 year-old on the Californian street in the forehead with a flaccid dick is molestation and illegal… I don’t know but there would be illegality in there somewhere - for a start I suspect it’s Illegal Exposure to splay yourself naked in public, and probably some Domestic Disturbance from all the yelling to be fucked, as well as Anti-Social Behaviour.

reply

I think your trolling rethoric is adding zero to the discussion.
You just enjoy accusing rape victims of some guilt only an idiot would find.

At this point I can only wish you to get ass raped by some nice fella and then get everybody telling you the same crap you throw against rape victims.
That might give you some real perspective on the situation.

reply

Yeah, you’re mindlessly spurging because you got caught reversing your position.

reply

Nope again,
I'm spurging because you keep focusing on the fucking finger instead of looking at the moon you pretend is not there.

reply

Is that bizarre finger fucking moon imagery also to distract from you embarrassingly reversing your position?

reply

ok, you are a shitty troll.
I din't know.

reply

This is idiotic. 🤬

Lolita was a CHILD being preyed on by two STRANGERS. She had zero emotional attachment to either of them because she was being molested. The two fuckwits didn't realize that she couldn't have cared less about them because that's how pedophiles think. They think the child they are molesting are loving them back.

Plus, children are fickle. They have no loyalties outside of the present until they mature out of that stage. Their fickleness are why little kids will scream, "I hate you," to their parents one moment and, "I love you the next."

That is the point of the "betrayal." Pedophile idiots like Humbert Humbert think that children can be "groomed" and "kept" like pets, as if once they finger bang them, the child will be forever grateful and loyal to them like a golden lab. But children are the complete and total opposite of that--and then some.

Don't even bother retorting with a response you "think" is clever. You're either a sick person who doesn't get it or an immature man child trolling on the internet. There's no "debate" here as far as I'm concerned, just one person dismissing another person's post for the bullshit that is this and telling him this: get help if you think these views are normal; get a hobby if you're lacking so few activities that being a vapid, boring troll is the only way to keep yourself amused. Make something of yourself so that you die a dignified human being and not just an inconsequential waste of sperm and egg.

reply

I'm certainly not endorsing child molesters, but I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that there are many teenagers out there who are much more socially and sexually sophisticated and experienced than certain types of repressed, socially inadequate adult males, as I personally witnessed in the case of my coworker that I mentioned in a previous post. If a teenage girl who has slept with multiple teenage boys comes in contact with a 35 year-old man who is a virgin and a social reject (with a lot of spending money) who is exploiting whom in that case?

reply

Your hyper-defensive final paragraph is very telling, as is your worrying insight into the paedophile mind. ‘The lady doth protest too much’ leaps to mind.

reply

She's right. You're wrong.

reply

☝🏻 Worthless

reply

.

reply

Boss-level needling right here. The responses are entertaining!

reply

It’s just my takeaway from the film, it surprised me how she was a kind of juvenile femme fatale.

The responses contain some predictable outrage from SJWs who have been so indoctrinated by the cult that they cannot ever see a young woman as a predator, nor a man as a victim.

reply

Indeed. They talk of having an open mind and yet see the world entirely in this or that terms.

reply

It’s easier that way. Uncertainty and curiosity are more difficult than telling yourself you’re right and stomping on anyone who disagrees.

reply

I agree. I just wonder if the culture at large will move past this phase, because it's very productive or, ahem, progressive.

reply

Two buffoons pleased with themselves and their own ignorance. Many of the replies gave valid arguments and you can only see it as "SJW outrage." Because anyone that disagrees with you must automatically be in an indoctrinated cult.

Of course they have an "open mind" there were more than "this or that terms" and anyway some things in life are simply "this or that." Right and wrong.

She is not a "young woman." She is a teenage girl.

reply

The three leads in the film were all ‘wrong’, as the OP pointed out. The men are hyper-possessive leches in love with a teenager, and Lolita is a stone-cold sociopath who delights in destroying and exploiting them for her pleasure.

She’s absolutely chilling as Humbert blubs his heart out and hands over everything he has to her and her new husband. A great movie villain indeed.

reply

I haven't read the book, so if we're only talking about the movie version, then maybe I can see that. But that's definitely not the case in the book

reply

I haven't read the book


But that's definitely not the case in the book


🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

Just because I haven't read it doesn't mean I've never researched or don't know anything. Case in point, Lolita is not meant to be painted as a villain by the author but rather in Humbert's point of view, he incorrectly views her that way

reply

The author also wrote the screenplay.

reply

I read that Kubrick largely didn't film most of what the author wrote but he is of course still credited. The weird thing is that his screenplay supposedly differed greatly from the novel, which makes one wonder how and why

reply

Kubrick wanted the film to be more explicit but the studio objected and in the finished film Lolita is never even seen kissing. I actually think this improves the film.

In the novel, Nabokov states that Lolita is 12 but in his screenplay her age is not mentioned (and she clearly looks older, the studio insisted on a girl with ‘a bust’) which I also agree with.

reply

What I meant was that Nabokov's screenplay was almost entirely cut but he wrote the screenplay to be quite different from his own original source material, which I find strange.

Yeah, I think it's implied that she's around 14 in the film. I think Lolita is supposed to actually be skinny and pretty much the average body shape for her age. At least that's the way she's portrayed in other films. This version takes a lot of liberties due to the time it was made

reply

I’d be interested to read the novel but I must credit Nabokov and Kubrick for creating one of cinema’s most chilling femme fatales… in the form of a bratty teenage girl 🤣

reply