Tony Curtis: In Memoriam.

I've compiled my favorite quotes from what was and always will be the greatest gift to film comedy of all time; "Some Like it Hot" (1960), directed by Billy Wilder. With the help of IMDB.com and me watching this film over again today, there are just too many gold phrases. I was strapped to pick just the best and beautiful few. 
I would always have to give my vote to Tony Curtis rather than Jack Lemmon in the 'who-played-a-better-woman' category. He once stated famously, that Jack Lemmon came out in costume looking like a '2-cent tart', so Tony decided to come out like a mix between Grace Kelly and his mother. But that's not all we will remember him for. It's not just the lip-pursing Josephine that is hilarious, but his Cary Grant impression as Shell Oil Junior that is one of the most memorable, hilarious, and brilliant in film history. Apparently, when Cary Grant watched the film, he said; 'I don't talk like that!', when of course he did. 
When I try to do my best Cary Grant impersonation, I always harken to Tony Curtis in 'Some Like it Hot'.  
Personal story: I was about 11 or so. My mother was out, and it was just me and my dad. They had just received a package of old films which included 'Singin' In The Rain', 'West Side Story', and 'Some Like it Hot'. My father called me over to the living room, saying that we were going to bake a pizza and watch an old film. I was very much against it. As a typical 11-year-old, I was not intrigued by a film from the 1950's, especially if it was in black and white. Had he said; 'we are going to watch 'The Sound of Music', i might have been more compliant. But my father was not someone to compromise with, (thank god). He made me sit down and watch 'Some Like it Hot' from start to finish. 
Within about 15 minutes of the film, I was completely sold. 
To this day, people ask me (and by people, I mean my mother's friends), what is my favorite film? A question which is increasingly annoying. But here's what I have realized. I would always love to recommend Ingmar Bergman or John Cassavetes to people, but I wasn't at that time aware of my audience. 
'Some Like It Hot' will always be a film that can be enjoyed no matter what kind of audience one has to approach. 
When I was a child watching it, I missed a lot of the subtle jokes, but it didn't matter. There are subtle jokes, there is good humor, there are prat falls, and the blueprints for the makings of every single romantic comedy that are still relevant today. 
Bottom line...'Some Like It Hot' is the best comedy on film. Period. 
This was the film that was the catalyst in my development as, if nothing more, a Film Geek. 
I can quote every single line from this film, and every time I watch it, I always think the same thing; 
'How will I or anyone ever top this kind of writing?'. 
Back to Tony Curtis. 
He was just another paper boy raised in The Bronx, originally named Bernard Schwartz. A real Lifetime Movie kinda guy. Raised to be a butcher a la 'Fiddler on the Roof', with his banal future all mapped out for him, he decided to rent a room in the Theater District in New York City, while waiting tables in Times Square just so he could take classes with Lee Strasberg. 
To be fair, the man was never that smart, and made a few statements that were and still are pretty offensive; the most notorious of which was when he was asked what it was like to kiss Marilyn Monroe, and he said it was 'like kissing Hitler'. 
Also, he mixed up her character's name, calling her Sugar Kowalski, (as in Stanley Kowalski from 'A Streetcar Named Desire), instead of her actual character's name which was; Sugar Koawlczyk. But who cares? I guess we all get confused in our old age. 
The second most significant performance of his that I must note is in Stanley Kubrick's 'Spartacus'; most of which was cut by the censors, but Criterion (bless them) has restored it. It is an infamous scene between him and Laurence Olivier. He plays a slave who is a singer of songs. Olivier takes him on as his 'body servant'. 
The scene that was just too provocative for the scensors was one in which Curtis bathes Olivier in  one of those beautiful, large Roman pools with some kind of loofa. Olivier gives that infamous speech where he asks Curtis if he prefers snails to oysters. 
While Curtis is completely naked, tanned, and oiled, he is asked whether he prefers the taste of snails to oysters. 
As much as Kubrick tried to hide the obvious allegory, the censors caught up. 


Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat oysters? 
Antoninus: When I have them, master. 
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat snails?
 Antoninus: No, master. 
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral? 
Antoninus: No, master. 
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it? 
Antoninus: Yes, master. 
Marcus Licinius Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals. 
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master. 
Marcus Licinius Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters. 

Snails or Oysters? 

Yes, he went a bit 'John McCain' towards the end, where the elevator wasn't running to the top floor anymore, and he was getting Burt Lancaster mixed up with Eva Marie Saint. I'll forgive him all of it. The reason being that in 'Some Like It Hot', he completely revived the stock character of 'man-pretending-to-be-a-woman', that dates back to Shakespeare. And yes, it is kind of funny watching behind-the-scenes commentary with a some venerable film scholar who admires the film greatly, talking with 1/3 of Tony Curtis' brain. 

The roles played by him and Jack Lemmon were initially intended for Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra respectively. Jack Lemmon is the big comedy catalyst of the film, but Tony Curtis is the icon of subtlety and Drag. 

He will be missed. 

Here are some of my favorite quotes from one of, if not the best, comedies of cinema: 

'What are you afraid of? No-one's asking you to have a baby!'  

Jerry: Have I got things to tell you! 

Joe: What happened? 

Jerry: I'm engaged. 

Joe: Congratulations. Who's the lucky girl? 

Jerry: I am! 

Will you look at that! Look how she moves! It's like Jell-O on springs. Must have some sort of built-in motor or something. I tell you, it's a whole different sex! 

Joe: But, you're *not* a girl! You're a *guy*, and, why would a guy wanna marry a guy? 

Jerry: Security! 

Osgood: [to the elevator operator] All right, driver, once around the park, slowly, and keep your eyes on the road. 

Osgood: I am Osgood Fielding the third. 

Daphne: I'm Cinderella the second. 

Daphne: [after meeting the all-girl band they'll be traveling with] How about that talent, huh? It's like falling into a tub of butter. 

Joe: Watch it, Daphne! 

Daphne: When I was a kid, Joe, I used to have a dream. I was locked up overnight in a pastry shop, and there was goodies all around. There was jelly rolls, and mocha eclairs, and sponge cake and Boston cream pie... 

Joe: Look, Stop... 

Daphne: and cherry tart... 

Joe: Stop, listen to me! No butter, no pastry. We're on a diet! 

Sugar: I come from this musical family. My mother is a piano teacher and my father was a conductor. 

Joe: Where did he conduct? 

Sugar: On the Baltimore and Ohio.  

Sugar: [on marrying well] I don't care how rich he is, as long as he has a yacht, his own private railroad car, and his own toothpaste. 

Sugar: [admiring a large fish trophy] What is it? 

Junior: It's a member of the herring family. 

Sugar: A herring? Isn't it amazing how they get those big fish into those little glass jars? 

Junior: They shrink when they're marinated. 

Jerry: He's not only got a yacht, he's got a bicycle!  

To end it with the greatest joke of cinema at that time: 

Jerry: Oh no you don't! Osgood, I'm gonna level with you. We can't get married at all. 

Osgood: Why not? 

Jerry: Well, in the first place, I'm not a natural blonde. 

Osgood: Doesn't matter. 

Jerry: I smoke! I smoke all the time! 

Osgood: I don't care. 

Jerry: Well, I have a terrible past. For three years now, I've been living with a saxophone player. 

Osgood: I forgive you. 

Jerry: [Tragically] I can never have children! 

Osgood: We can adopt some. 

Jerry: But you don't understand, Osgood! 

[Pulls off his wig] 

Jerry: I'm a man! 

Osgood: Well, nobody's perfect! 

Hookers: From Garbo To Grey.

I always have a problem with cinema hookers. For some reasons hookers seemed to be born into cinema with a heart of gold. No one likes a fallen woman, therefore, filmmakers always made sure of a major point. They obscure the fact that she's a hooker, and leave it as a bleak depiction of a some kind of modern Mary Magdalene. It's very Christian, and yet, with all the advances and lack of stigma given to prostitution and a general shedding of puritanical filmmaking, when you get asked to play a hooker, you're more than likely to regurgitate an old tradition, with the boundaries being very limited. You might get to flash the good stuff and make yourself down, to be more appealing for today's Academy, but other than that 'underdog' nomination that two people clap for when you're name is called on Oscar night, and then not followed after  'and the Oscar goes to...' hookerism has become one of the most tired cliches in Hollywood, right after the stubborn man with mental difficulties, and the David vs. Goliath scenario.

Let's look at the evolution here. One of the first real, graphic, and vivid depictions of hookerdom was when Greta Garbo did it in "Mata Hari"(1931), a pre-code film about the life of the infamous spy who traded sex for strategy secrets during World War I.

In the film, there is virtually no mention of the former part of her resume, but that she is the most powerful woman in the world, seducing men with her undeniable charm, luring them in with her exotic feminine wiles.

The real story behind Mata Hari, is a very morbidly sad one. Born in the Netherlands, she became what was at that time called a Courtesan. She eventually ended up in Paris, where her time as a double agent began. She was eventually convicted of espionage and executed by a firing squad. She was known as to be so severe an agent, because she was able to lull the most stoic and stubborn military men into bed and then have them tell her their secrets while they were in the throws of ecstasy. 

Mata Hari, photographed circa 1913 

Greta Garbo as Mata Hari in the self-titled film's poster made in 1931 

Lets jump about 80 years forward to the newest film about working women; Steven Soderbergh's 'The Girlfriend Experience' (2009). Now, most people would classify 'Erin Brockovich' (2001) as a 'hook-with-a-heart-of-gold' film, but PC rules prevent against that. In the latter, it is the format. Only Erin Brockovich isn't a hooker, but appears like one; a minor technicality. 

'The Girlfriend Experience' is appropriately named, as it deals with one of the unwavering mathematical constant aspects of hookerdom. Those dirty old men that go to the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, or the few other legal brothels in the states always seem to order the same thing. It is the most popular dish on the whore menu; the girlfriend experience. They don't want the Pamela Anderson look-alike, even if she's wearing that skimpy red bathing suit, and her hair is the same color as mustard. They want to talk, they want to feel like they have known said hooker for a while. They complain about their marriage, their banal white-collar torture job, and their bratty kids who just won't calm the fuck down. 

There is probably a saying in every language and in every culture, that is something to the degree of 'I need someone who will do things that my wife won't'. But they still want her to behave and act like the wife for that sordid 30 minutes that they buy inside a dim lit, awkward room in the back. 

Joan Crawford stated on the record to Louella Parsons that the perfect woman should be 'a lady in the parlor, and a whore in bed'. This was back in the 1940's, and for some reason, it seems like puritanical government has pushed us backwards. We as women are either ladies or whores. I would like to bring up an instance in the poorly adapted version of the play 'Closer' (2004) by Mike Nichols, where Clive Owen's character, Larry is interrogating Julia Robert's character (Anna) about her infidelities with Jude Law's character (Dan).

Here is the conversation (partial): 

Larry: Is he a good fuck? 
Anna: Don't do this. 
Larry: Just answer the question! Is he good? 
Anna: Yes. 
Larry: Better than me? 
Anna: Different. 
Larry: Better? 
Anna: Gentler. 
Larry: What does that mean? 
Anna: You know what it means. 
Larry: Tell me! 
Anna: No. 
Larry: I treat you like a whore? 
Anna: Sometimes. 
Larry: Why would that be? 

It appears that in this day and age, whore-ism is the most repugnant of mental being. Mental being the key word. Feeling like a whore, does not necessitate physically walking the street in stripper heels charging 30$ for felatio. This is completely understandible especially because every undergrad program requires you to read at least 2 essays by Betty Friedan, but if you focus on this sociological phenomenon through a cinematic perspective, there is a major change in values that is of utmost irony and needs to be noted. 

Back in the good ol' days, which are not only before our time, but before most of our parents' times, sexuality in film was highly taboo and stricly regulated. Despite this, the biographies of the biggest female stars of that time (as well as male) talk in detail about the harem like atmosphere that they were living in during their best years. Errol Flynn used to get up to 30 young excited extras to walk around his Brentwood home serving Champagne and mint juleps. There are many stories like this, but my favorite has to be Joan Crawford (I know, I know). In the infamous 'Mommie Dearest' written by Christina Crawford, her adopted daughter after Joan's death in the 1980's, there are many things one would never imagine flying today, not even by Hollywood standards. One such story is how Christina (when she was about 6 to 10) would have to answer the door and make a drink for whoever was calling for her mother. The men ranged from David O. Selznick to Yul Brynner. Joan would be upstairs getting ready, and Christina was to entertain them, as much as a 7 year old could, and she was always made to refer to the man as 'Uncle'. Imagine that scenario. 

Ding Dong...hello Uncle Cagney, would you like a Whiskey sour? Please sit, make yourself comfortable while my mother oils the inside of her thighs. 

Does this make her a whore? Is Marlene Dietrich a whore for sleeping with three generations of Kennedy's? Is Marilyn a whore for sleeping with numerous agents so that she would finally get signed at 20th Century Fox? Is Marion Davies a whore for doing all of her co-stars because W.R. Hearst was just too old and fat to satisfy her when she needed it? 

No. But if Lindsay Lohan does it, or when Miley Cyrus gives Adam Shankman a lap dance, or gets photographed by Annie Lebovitz with her back exposed, she's definitely fallen into the deviant ways of womanhood. 

Let's get this straight. If Annie Lebovitz tells you to take your shirt off, you do it. If she tells you to make out with a monkey while straddling the American flag, you do it. 

So let's come full circle. From Garbo as Mata Hari to Sasha Grey in 'The Girlfriend Experience'. Garbo was ironically the biggest prude of her era. She had a great love (John Gilbert), and after he died, and her career went to hell, became a total recluse hermit crab. She only came out every once in a while dressed head to toe in dark colors with her hair up and her famous eyes hidden behind thick shades. Her closest relationship was with that of her assistant who could do everything required in going out of her apartment (groceries, shopping, etc.). You could say she was that crazy cat lady without the cats, but to be kind, let's call her the old maid spinster. Very 'Sunset Blvd.'. 

Sasha Grey is 22 year old porn star. She's not just a porn-actress, she's a bona fide, award-winning star, and garners millions in revenue for her films which range from the 'romantic fantasy' to 'gangbang slut', if you were to type in keywords on redtube.com. 

In interviews, Soderbergh said he chose her because she had 'a quality'...i know, how tired and cliche is that? And how much porn did he have to watch for research? But amidst the cornucopia of platinum blonde, fake boobed, dinky ingenues, it would appear she really does stand out in the industry. His film gave her a kind of voice; her own 20/20 exclusive. That show must have done a million and a half episodes on prostitution, and it is always about these unfortunate women who can't stand what they are doing, have more than once been beaten, and are usually addicted to something or other to dull the pain that is their existence. It's all very heart-wrenching and hypocritical, but in Sasha's case, we see a girl who is smart, able, and has all the makings of a bright future in college, and everything else that we classify as 'acceptable'. She comes from a prominent background, and doesn't look like a streetwalker. She looks like that girl that your sorry ass was too chicken to ask to the prom back in the day. She is sans regret. She is above moral influence. In a way, she is more of the 'modern woman' than Soderbergh's Erin Brockovich. 

Grey with Soderbergh at the premier of 'The Girlfriend Experience' in LA, 2009. 

With the release of this film, she and Soderbergh made every snooty critic write down in bold capitals that he doesn't watch porn, and had to look her up on wikipedia so that he could familiarize himself with who she is. She made the transition of being the one you turn on when you sleepily trudge into your garage, pull out a bottle of Johnson and Johnson's and do your thing at 3 o'clock in the morning, to someone who is now noted for her 'vivid and bold' performance. I'm sure Marlon Brando's ghost is enraged by just how method this whole thing is; a porn star playing a hooker. I'm sure her copy of 'An Actor Prepares' was heavily annotated. 

But here's the thing, her performance is irrelevant. The circumstance and aesthetic are just affects of the cultural disturbance that happens. She brings pornography into a respected atmosphere. She can walk the red carpet with Steven Soderbergh and appear at Cannes, being hounded by legitimate journalists instead of horny fat teenagers at Comi Con. One can only imagine if she was nominated for an Oscar, but that would never happen. We only accept women who are whores who 'evolve' into something greater and end up being a benefit to society. Even if she was to out-act Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster, Elizabeth Taylor (in Butterfield 8), she would still be the whore, sans the heart of gold. 

What this film has done if anything is transformed that stock character. She doesn't have to reform, nor feel sorry for what she is doing for a living. She makes more money in a day than I ever will in a month. And now that she's done a 'legitimate' film, even more than that. 

The question is; if someone like Garbo, Dietrich, Streep etc. plays her quintessential role as a prostitute, will that pigeonhole her? Conversely, if bona fide Sasha Grey makes the apparently smooth transition from porn to narrative, will she get offers in the future from big studios and directors? A puzzlement indeed. 

Thoughts are always and greatly appreciated. 

Seductress Pick: Marlene Dietrich

This should be one long long blog entry, in fact, it should be an entire blog. I cannot give enough credit to Marlene Dietrich. As much as I wanted to hate her in my NYU days...as much as I wanted to contradict her in my Columbia days, and as much as I wish I had not fallen in love with her, through all my days...she will always have control. It has been over 30 years since her death, and she is still the original.
I went through a 'which 30's sexpot are-you' thing, and I always came out with Garbo, her big nemesis. I didn't want to like her, but she ended up being that one that I would always be in love with, and if i was my age in the 1930's, the only person I would make love with. Marlene is and always will remain the epitome of sex. period.
I first discovered Marlene in 'Judgement at Nuremberg', where she played the sympathetic wife or a Nazi doctor who was executed, and who Spencer Tracy eventually falls for.
I'm a jew, (not a very good one but whatever) and I would still go for her even though she was the wife of a Nazi. In reality, she was considered one of the biggest opposers of the Nazi regime and helped rescue hundreds of people before the outbreak of the war.
There were so many other sexy, slick, and swanky women around in the 1930's; Jean Harlow, Norma Sherear, Irene Dunne, the list goes on and on...but I think we can all agree how Dietrich distinguished herself. I think my favorite performance of hers is in 'Blonde Venus' (1933), cliche i know, but bear with me. She transforms from this innocent naive little girl, to a doting house frau and mother, to a brazen night club performer. And even in that ridiculous clown wig and gorilla costume, she is irresistible.
It's  believed that she used to suck lemon wedges to get her lips as full and plump as they were, but lets go back.
American audiences, including film geeks like me were captivated by "Der blaue Engel" when she showed her legs and sang: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaZDiKRT1is


Falling in Love Again..
Never Wanted To... 
What am I to Do? 
I Can't Help It... 


Here is the thing, there are always going to be rivalries, Jen Aniston vs. Angie Jolie, Crawford vs. Davis...to conclude...Garbo vs. Dietrich... 


The Winner: Marlene Dietrich 


Why? Here's why...there is no one who had so much attitude, gumption, and just beauty (which is hard to do in competition with Garbo)...She remained the best deviant throughout her life, it wasn't just for Josef Von Sternberg, she kept it through a few decades, one instance where she actually rivaled Marilyn Monroe. She has had affaris with three generations of Kennedy's...who else can say that? 

Let's Decide Finally.

There have been many instances, especially recently when an actor gets to reprise a roll that has already been played...by someone else. Whether it is a remake, or a new angle on the initial material, let's put to rest once and for all the 'who did it better' debate, by asking a more interesting question; 'who did it naughtier?' Why you ask? Because from Chaplin, to Rivera, to Lolita herself, their naughtiness is what makes them memorable, the portrayal should be that which is not eclipsing but definitely significantly deviant. I am of course focusing on representation of characters who's deviance is a significant part of their existence, not like Gary Oldman in JFK or James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...So here we go...

CHARLIE CHAPLIN 

Robert Downey Jr. in Chaplin (1992)

OR

Eddie Izzard in The Cat's Meow (2002)

THE WINNER IS:
Eddie Izzard.
Sorry Robby, but your portrayal of the biggest icon of the first half of the 20th century in Richard Attenburrough's latest attempt to kiss the Academy's ass, just didn't do it for me. Even your love scene with an 18 year old Milla Jovovich (something pretty hard to fuck up) seemed contrived and awkward. Epic fail.

QUEEN ELIZABETH I

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth (1998) 

OR

Dame Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love (1998)

ThE WINNER IS:

Cate Blanchett. 

Despite the Oscars disagreeing with me on this, I didn't pick Catie just because she plays the Queen at 25 while JuJu plays her 65. I thought of maybe including the Helen Mirren one in this argument, but I decided against it. I just have to give the angle to Blanchett, as I think that her Elizabeth was just much more of a naughty girl, though of course she had more room to be comparatively to Juju's 8 minutes. 

DIEGO RIVERA 

Ruben Blades in Cradle Will Rock (1999)

OR 

Alfed Molina in Frida (2002)

WINNER: 

Ruben Blades. 

Now, I know most haven't seen "Cradle Will Rock" or have heard of Ruben Blades, but he was a revelation. He managed to steal the spotlight from the so-called 'multi-protagonist' film in his character's plight to be able to paint a socialist allegory in Rockefeller Center back in the 1930's. Alfred Molina's Rivera is very beautiful in it's ability to capture the profound guilt of not being able to help cheating on Friday Khalo, but none of the eccentricities, madness, and whimsy of Rivera. Remember, Rivera was a man who wasn't just a cheating husband (as "Frida" portrays him) he was one of the most profound painters of the 20th century. Blades plays him as such; a genius incapable of compromise. 

ANDY WARHOL 

David Bowie in Basquiat (1996)


OR 

Jared Harris in I Shot Andy Warhol (1996)

WINNER: 

David Bowie. 

This should be an obvious one. First, Bowie knew Warhol and was very much influenced by him. Also, though Warhol, within the context of 'Basquiat' is portrayed as an aloof accidental genius without layers, this is actually how Warhol always was to the media. Even people closest to Warhol always wished they could 'get close' to him, on some kind of personal level, but very few actually acheived this. I think the only person that really knew Warhol was his mother. He said he didn't read; he read all the time, he said that art doesn't inspire him, he was very much influenced by Lichtenstein, Rembrandt, and Vermeer. His self contradictions go on and on. He frustrated all of us be being consistently dishonest and thereby mysterious. Bowie is the winner. In both films, the dynamic of Warhol's relationship with his 'friends' is examined, in 'Basquiat' it is with painter Jean-Michel Basquiat. In 'I Shot Andy Warhol', it is with psychopath Valeria Solanas. But in the former, is the frustration of the other by not being able to acutally formulate any kind of human contact is it really striking. 

SADIE THOMPSON 

Gloria Swanson in Sadie Thompson (1928)

OR 

Joan Crawford in Rain (1932) 

WINNER:

Joan Crawford.

I've already posted an entry on this comparison, but it's still fun to talk about. If you look at each of their aesthetic, it's almost identical; thick lipstick, eye-liner, fur, the works. But Crawford wins this one, because you really do believe that she was one hell of a hooker before her trip to Pago Pago. Yes, she is more camp than Swanson, but she is also much more serious about her deviance. I admit, this might be a little bias as I worship at the alter of Crawford. I can't help it.

CRYSTAL ALLEN

Eva Mendes in The Women (2009)

OR

Joan Crawford in The Women (1939)

THE WINNER: 

Joan Crawford. 

It's really as simple as giving the bitch of the film sympathy. Crystal Allen is the main antagonist. She steals the husband, and she has no problem with how it affects his long suffering wife, in fact, tells her that it was her own fault for not pleasing him enough. Joanie is the villain, and yet her exit when she finally gets what's coming to her is rather touching, and you kind of understand how it is that she got to be so heartless, and you actually feel for the woman. A+.

LOLITA 

Sue Lyon in Lolita (Kubrick, 1962)

OR 

Dominique Swain in Lolita (Adrien Lyne, 1997)

WINNER: Dominique Swain 

To round these arguments off, I thought I'd go with the quintessential cinema deviant. Here's the thing, if you've read the book you understand that Humbert Humbert is actually not the big disgusting pedophile pervert. It is his traumatic sexual experiences in childhood that make him pine for 'nymphets'. In the book, Lolita is actually not the world's greatest beauty. Humbert says that a normal man given a picture of school girls will not necessarily choose the nyphet among them. He would rather go for the most beautiful. Lolita in the novel is an underdeveloped, brunette, 12 year old with a heavy voice. She does not mean to seduce him, it just so happens that she falls into his sexual nature. She is not so much beautiful, as she is lovely, not so much a deviant as she is whimsical, not so much promiscuous as she is curious. It is the filmmaker's job to make us see Dolores Hayes, Lo, Dolly, Lolita as something so profoundly special that we understand Humbert's complete sacrifice to drive himself into utter and absolute madness. Granted, Lyne had more to work with considering he didn't have to worry about the censorship code breathing down his neck like an angry nun in Sunday school, and considering his filmography, we are meant to expect some deep deviance. Kubrick famously stated that if he knew the limitations and subsequent stress and headaches that came from making such a controversial film from such a controversial book, which was at that time still banned in certain countries, he would have never made it in the first place. Alas, what is of absolute importance is that the Kubrick 'Lolita' is a film about Humbert Humbert, the Lyne 'Lolita' is about Lolita. Granted, the book is about Humbert as well, but Lyne's way of expressing the utmost of primal sexual yearning is very sincere. Sue Lyon, bless her, as pretty as she was, seemed no more than an up-and-coming pin up girl. Even with Kubrick's direction, there was not much more to that mysterious character, and I was always felt wondering why Humbert sacrificed everything just to be able to smell her hair. Lyne pulled what I liked to call a "Zeffirelli", where he had permission to actually hire an actress that was almost the same age as the character in the original story, (Zeffirelli caused a lot of controversy by casting actual teenagers in his version of "Romeo and Juliet" rather than using 30-year-olds as had been done before). Swain was 14 when she took on this role, which was originally intended of 13-year-old Natalie Portman, and I am still taken aback by her ability to find the underbelly of Lolita. She was very mature for an actress of her age, and I still don't think anyone else could have done it better. Lyne portrays the story as a sexual melodrama, thereby Kubrick was more correct in his adaptation when he treated it as a dark comedy, which is how the book reads. And yet, there is the undertone of the worst kind of suffering of personal experience. The reason for this suffering is this little girl with ginger braids, lovingly nicknamed Lolita. And that's what it comes down to. We have to believe that this suffering is genuine, and that's what I believe Swain accomplished.