Oh, Humbert the Humble... Aren't we his Lolita? Part 1

    "Our beloved thirty-seven-year-old narrator, Humbert Humbert, swept us off our feet in the loving tale of Lolita. Dolores Haze... the light of his life, the fire of his loins. His sin, his soul. Lo-lee-ta... if only she wasn't fourteen years old--"

    *record scratches*

    Yes. 

    You read that correctly.

    Dolores Haze, in Lolita (1997), was fourteen years old at the beginning of the film. I'm skipping the small talk in this analysis; Therefore, this piece of commentary is better suited for those who have seen the full content of the film (and remembered it). Now let's redo that introduction:

    Oh, Humbert the Humble. The thirty-seven-year-old male protagonist of Lolita (1997) crept into the minds of those who were susceptible or willing to entertain the ideology of grooming and pubescent consent. But for the sake of this commentary, I will not condemn the viewer, for it was Humbert's sole purpose to knead the audience in the palms of his hands... much like his intentions with Dolores Haze.

    Let's start with the breakdown of one of society's predatory passing cards: 

    Physical Attractiveness. 

    Although Humbert had no say in who would be his actor (because he's not real, lol), this production decision was crucial for a good portion of the audience who fell into his arms. For Lolita (1997), Jeremy Irons played the role of Humbert Humbert.

    

    We can mainly agree that attractiveness is subjective. But if part of society deems you attractive, your crimes might often lie in the shadow of your beauty (not in every case, of course. Nuance is encouraged). Jeremy Irons is 6'1½" and was roughly forty-seven years old during the start of production. But how differently would the audience have reacted if Jeremy Irons were five feet tall and eighty-one years old? Or if he were African American instead of European? Or female instead of male? What unspoken bias might've risen up in an aesthetically different circumstance?

    In other words, the visuals of this film bring forth a different impact than that of the novel. While reading the tale, it's quite easy to imagine Humbert as a wholly undesirable man in cohesion to his predatory behavior and thought process. Yet, if we replace that undesirable man in the audience's imagination with Jeremy Irons... we start to see a bit of a shift towards turning a blind eye regarding Humbert's behavior (but this does not necessarily take into account the individuals who still swooned over Humbert simply by reading the novel). 

    To put it plain and simple, a portion of the audience is attracted (in some form or fashion) to Humbert through the actor, Jeremy Irons. Reiterating my sentiment from before, I am not condemning the viewers in this commentary, but shedding light on why certain individuals could fall for Humbert's... I dunno, uhhh, charm? 

    Instead, let's see how this real-world phenomenon is present within the story, starting with Charlotte Haze. Upon Humbert and Charlotte meeting for the first time during the house tour, we can infer that Charlotte finds him attractive. She finds him so attractive, in fact, that she does not pick up on his lingering stare over Dolores (and his eagerness to live with them only after spotting her daughter). She was quite too busy attempting to speak French, in hopes of impressing Humbert, to notice a predator was walking amongst them. A predator that would revel in her death, for he was the reason that she tragically died. Albeit some individuals might consider his part in Charlotte's death to be indirect, one cannot deny that Humbert was the reason she went to the mailbox that morning and... well, you know the rest. 

    But who am I to say that it was Charlotte's fault for Humbert grooming Dolores? No, no, I believe quite the opposite. Humbert played a very stealthy game in his pursuit of Dolores. He knew from the start that Charlotte was infatuated with him (especially since she was a single mother & widow). He knew that Charlotte was somewhat desperate to impress and bestowed upon him a great deal of trust so early on in their living arrangement and "relationship". He was so dedicated to the stealth that he married Charlotte to solidify his proximity to Dolores under the guise of a "father figure"... and Humbert knew he could get away with it. Why? Because the mother was "head over heels" attracted to him. Humbert fully understood that he could manipulate, lie, and even drug Charlotte with sedatives because of what he represented to her. This physical attraction is what blinded her and, in return, part of the audience. 

    So, now I ask you: Just as he toyed with Charlotte's feelings throughout his hunt for Dolores, aren't we, the audience, his Lolita? Charlotte is to Dolores what our perception is to us. But, to Humbert? Perception is something to be toyed with, manipulated, and bent to benefit his endgame: the grooming and taking of innocence... 

    -- and my goodness, compared to the nature of Humbert the Humble, aren't we all quite innocent?

Notes: Hey, Kooksies! This is my very first blog entry. I hope you enjoyed this commentary, and feel free to leave a comment (be respectful). The next entry regarding Lolita might focus on the horror perspective through Dolores' eyes OR simply a Part Two of this current entry (focusing on how cinematography played a role in our perception of Humbert). 

    -- Kooks, signing off!