‘Lolita’ Loses Her Chaperon

The seductive charms of director Adrian Lyne’s “Lolita” were not enough to hold Academy Award-winning producer Richard D. Zanuck to the project.

It seems Zanuck, who produced the Oscar-winner “Driving Miss Daisy,” bailed before filming even started. His stated reason is that the film’s delayed start date posed a scheduling conflict for other projects he planned to produce. “Lolita” was supposed to begin shooting in North Carolina in June, but the cameras didn’t even begin to roll until the first week of September. It will also film in Louisiana and Texas.

Privately, sources involved with “Lolita” say the reasons for Zanuck’s exit go much deeper.

Those close to the director and producer say Zanuck left “Lolita” because the budget had climbed to at least $50 million from the proposed $41 million--and that was before filming began. Zanuck has a reputation as a stickler on meeting production deadlines and budgets. Lyne, the British filmmaker who has directed “Indecent Proposal,” “Fatal Attraction,” “9 1/2 Weeks” and “Jacob’s Ladder,” has at times been known for the opposite.

But even the agreed-upon $41-million budget, being bankrolled by the French company Chargeurs, was a bit too high for some involved in the picture. Sources say Zanuck agreed privately that the amount should have fallen comfortably in the $25-million range. Especially, they say, when Lyne’s version will be measured against critically acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 “Lolita,” which starred James Mason, Peter Sellers, Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon and occasionally appears on TV.

Lyne has told The Times that his version, starring Jeremy Irons, Melanie Griffith and newcomer Dominique Swain, will be much truer to Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 bestseller of the same name.

But those close to Lyne say the reason the budget has grown is because of costs related to filming in three states, unlike Kubrick’s version, which was filmed around London. They note that Kubrick’s insistence on filming in England was one of the criticisms of the ’62 version, since it clearly did not reflect the descriptive American locales in Nabokov’s classic.

Both Lyne and Carolco Pictures, whose chairman, Mario Kassar, is executive-producing “Lolita,” declined to comment on budget costs and Zanuck’s exit. Kassar brought aboard Joel Michaels, who produced Carolco’s upcoming “Cutthroat Island,” to replace Zanuck.

Zanuck also declined to comment on claims that he left the production for any reason other than the announced scheduling conflict.

“Adrian is a dear friend,” Zanuck said. “When I came onto this picture we were supposed to begin production in June, but we didn’t actually start until Sept. 5. Adrian made me promise that if I produced this film, I would see it all the way through.

“But when June turned into September, I knew I couldn’t keep that promise,” Zanuck said. “I have a project with Bruce Beresford, which hasn’t been announced yet, and I have a project at Fox. I can’t talk about either now. But let it suffice to say that ‘Lolita’s’ scheduling proved impossible for me. Leaving this picture was a very delicate issue, and I wouldn’t want Adrian to think my reason for doing so was anything other than what I have stated publicly.”

Still, some are not convinced. According to an executive at MGM, a studio that considered distributing “Lolita”: “Zanuck brought prestige to this picture. He’s sort of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on a production with dicey subject matter. Basically this is the story of a 40-year-old man lusting after a very young teen-ager. Pedophilia is a tough sell, and somehow Zanuck’s name took away some of the taint, if you know what I mean. Around here, most people believe Dick thought he just wouldn’t have enough control, and for him, it just didn’t sit well.”