Question of Film’s Danger Draws Variety of Views

The Aug. 3 Counterpunch by Paul Maurer, which criticized the remake of “Lolita,” drew a heavy and fervent response from readers. Today we offer viewpoints from an executive at Showtime and from readers on both sides of the debate.

Paul Maurer is right about one thing: “Lolita” is really dangerous, but not to children. No self-respecting teenager could sit through this slow, melancholy meditation of an aging academic, as he becomes the jailer and then the prisoner of a moronic 14-year-old.

In the novel, Vladimir Nabokov took a cold look at American culture and laughed at our obsession with celebrity and youth, then gave it a very dark spin. Director Adrian Lyne has that same interest in cultural mythology--”everybody has her price” in “Indecent Proposal,” “sex with the wrong person can kill” in “Fatal Attraction,” and he has done his work well in the Showtime version of this literary classic.

The worship of youth is the great googly monster of American life. It keeps us adolescent, Puritanical. We are the laughing stock of the known world as we harvest DNA from the dresses of young women who should know better (from a man who should have done better). Nabokov, and now Lyne, are brave enough to delve into this American obsession. They have indeed created a work of some danger--the danger being thought.

A.R. TAYLOR

Marina del Rey

Yes, “Lolita” may indeed be an irresponsible portrayal of pedophilia, and may do a disservice to its audience, but does that mean that academics like Maurer, who naturally know everything, have the right to do a disservice to our Bill of Rights in return? Maurer had the opportunity to see this film and formulate an opinion on it; why shouldn’t others have the same chance?

Just because most people do not have advanced degrees does not mean that the average moviegoer would be incapable of making a value judgment about this film. The truth is that the vast majority of movies do a disservice to women and girls, in terms of how their makers choose to portray them, or even exclude them entirely, and I, as a moviegoer, choose not to see those films or give them financial support by buying a ticket. Yet, in terms of this specific film, Maurer wants to take my constitutional right to make my own decision regarding the merit of this form of free expression, which I find more repugnant than a mere film could ever be.

MARY SHELTON

Riverside

After finishing the article I can only wonder if Maurer and I saw the same movie. He complained that Humbert Humbert was portrayed as “sympathetic.” With an obsession for a gawky adolescent who had no redeeming virtues, Humbert was simply “pathetic.” Maurer also complained because Lolita was portrayed as “willing” and “aggressive” while Humbert was “passive.” Would he have been less critical if it had been the reverse?

In fact, throughout the story Humbert pursues “Lo,” tracking her down several years after she disappeared, driving across the country to find her married and pregnant, and still asking her to leave with him. This is “passive”?

More serious is Maurer’s claim that the film will encourage pedophiles and “ultimately endanger our young people,” a claim he makes without citing a single supporting scientific study. And, predictably, Maurer, like the typical, self-righteous moral guardian who claims to speak for everyone, condemns the film because it “offends our commonly held values and standards.” Donald Wildmon could not have said it better.

Maurer is identified as a “PhD student in political philosophy” (whatever that is) and vice president of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families. Are we supposed to be impressed? If it’s that easy, I’m going to establish a group called the National Coalition to Protect Moviegoers From Sanctimonious Prudes.

FORREST G. WOOD

Bakersfield

Was Maurer in a PhD-induced fog when he wrote his protest or had he just returned from his National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families meeting? Have you been to a mall lately, Paul? Have you seen the Lolitas walking around? Where do you suppose these girls come from? Venus? No, they come from homes where the prevailing attitude is, “Not my responsibility, not my fault, I tried, what’s a parent to do?” . . . if the kid is lucky enough to have parents.

It’s time for do-gooders like Maurer to wake up and smell the coffee. It’s not movie makers or authors who are to blame for problems you perceive in our children. It’s their parents and their seeming lack of control. All the coalitions in the world are not going to change a thing unless you can get to the root of the problem. Parents need to take back the responsibility of raising their children--not the schools, not day-care. The movie, in my opinion, was no worse than watching the local evening news.

In summation, Mr. Maurer, get a life; and if you have children, raise them, so then the notion that America needs coalitions like yours will go away.

VICTOR M. ROBINSON

Palmdale

If Maurer had taken the time to read Nabokov’s masterpiece, he would know that--just as in O’Henry’s famous short story “Ransom of Red Chief”--the “victim” ends up being the dominant person who is really in charge of events. (And he would know that Lolita was already sexually active, and that she later dumps Humbert for the far more despicable, but rich, pedophile Quilty.)

These two stories are not endorsements of pedophilia or of kidnapping, they are simply stories. But without their crucial plot twists, there would be no stories at all.

Although Lyne’s “Lolita” is a very accurate interpretation of the book (except for the inexplicable age change from 12 to 14), it can’t deliver the texture and resonance of the novel, the power of which was not the story itself, but Nabokov’s wonderful words, the right-on depiction of mid-America of the era, a story told with delicacy, charm and wit. “Lolita” deserves its selection as No. 4 on the recent list of the top 100 novels of the last 100 years, even though Maurer didn’t choose to include it in his family bookshelf. If he had, this letter wouldn’t be necessary.

GORDON HEARNE

Encino

I’m not sure what is more bothersome: Maurer’s crude misreading of the complexities of the film or his failure to find those same complexities in Nabokov’s novel.

On the one hand, Maurer claims that Lyne’s film “portrayed the pedophile as the passive victim and the child as the aggressor.” It does no such thing.

Rather, it recognizes that children are aware of sex, that they can have crushes on adults and that adults can take advantage of these crushes. The film is not pro-pedophilia, as its closing lines, taken straight from the novel, suggest:

As Humbert Humbert hears the rising sound of children’s laughter from the town below, he thinks, “and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord.” And Humbert knows who is responsible for stealing her childhood.

On the other hand, Maurer clearly has not invested much time in “Lolita” the novel, for he mistakenly sees its “basic story” as one in which Humbert is just a “sick monster.” But Humbert truly does love Lolita. Evidence of the complexity of their relationship is too extensive to review here, although Maurer would do well to reread Part 2, Chapter 10.

But Maurer is not writing about artistic merit. He makes the broader mistake of assuming that those portrayed in film ought to be either imitable heroes or despised villains. Good art doesn’t do that.

HANS NOEL

Department of Political Science,

UCLA

Maurer is correct. This movie will support the pedophile’s premise--”she really wants it.” This film will increase the incidents of this tragic act.

The filmmakers are either unaware of what their film will do--or do not care. The first is utter stupidity, the latter unconscionable.

Hopefully it is not too late to stop this regrettable mistake. Both for society and for Nabokov.

CECILIA PRESLEY

Newport Beach

Maurer was right on the money. The film industry is always touting itself as some sort of liberating artistic society, when in reality it is made up of many individuals who are far removed from our existing culture.

Unfortunately, the movie business is a powerful entity, and many times they shove their own personal views of life upon the world with no regard to the consequences.

So I was very proud to read Maurer’s incisive article, because I know it’s difficult to stand up against the mighty Hollywood machine. When we do we are quickly labeled as right-wing fanatics; in reality, all we are asking is for them to show some common sense once in a while.

ALEJANDRO J. DIAZ

Downey

As Maurer pointed out, Lyne’s version of “Lolita” presents a story consistent with the pedophile-promoted myth that children are sexually aggressive beings who invite molestation. The film, like the many so-called “Lolita” Internet sites that for years have been disseminating pedophile fantasies, is thus a commercial distortion of the Nabokov novel that exposed that myth.

Unfortunately, Lyne’s distortion has been ignored by many media writers--including Times business writer Claudia Eller (July 31)--who have pronounced Lyne’s version “faithful” to the original.

MARK DAVIDSON

Professor of Communications

Cal State Dominguez Hills

I have not seen the new version of “Lolita” nor do I plan to. I do not subscribe to Showtime and have no plans to. Also, I am like almost everyone on this planet who feels that exploiting children, for any reason, is wrong, and that it is our responsibility to protect children, whether they be ours or not, from harmful forces.

However, the issue about this film is not about whether anyone sees “Lolita” or not. That issue is a commercial one. This issue is about artistic freedom.

I am not naive enough to think that I can convince, or even explain, to Maurer what art is. I suspect no one knows the answer to that question. What I hope to do is to let him know that freedom should not be taken in fits and starts.

AAMIR HANIF

Waukee, Iowa