The Lolita-ification of Hollywood.

by Isabel Hodges.

“No longer a child, not yet a woman, WHAT IS SHE?”

Frame from Lolita, 1962, MGM.

The term Lolita is use to define young girls as “precociously seductive”. Ewwww.

The Lolita Phenomenon:

The Lolita-ifiction of Hollywood is more than just a touchy subject, its imbued in the simmering pot of the factory style studio system. This is sadly a fundamental part of media that has created a disturbing pattern of films glamourising the so-called “Nymphet Core”. This is an aesthetic that strives to sexualise young girls. Derived from its omnipresent predecessor Nabokov’s 1955 novel Lolita: red lollipops, heart-shaped sunglasses and frilly socks are hyper-sexualised through suggestive marketing making “the text [become] a feminized commodity” ¹   Gabbard, Krin. “THE CIRCULATION OF SADOMASOCHISTIC DESIRE IN THE LOLITA TEXTS.” Journal of Film and Video 46, no. 2 (1994): 19–30. . I’m not declaring that this novel is the first of its kind to inspire this aesthetic and movement towards disgustingly uncomfortable paedophilic relationships in media, but after a wide circulation and two film adaptations. The book has been sent to a stratospheric heights. Lolita is no longer a child, but a sexual object that has undergone pornification. This apparent purity of innocence and vulnerability through the perversion of the adolescent body, enables the idea that men can take advantage or exert their ‘power’ or authority over an untouched and naive body. The constant concerning depictions of paedophilic and creepy age gap relationships in film dates back from the it’s early creation in the 1900s all the way into 2021 with Red Rocket (Sean Baker) , showcasing the sadomasochistic desire to not only have control over an impressionable body but also the mind. A body that is not yet formed, and a mind that can easily be moulded. Through this harmful marketing across both films and novels, this young girl is shown to the audience to love and accept her predator. Although there is a constant debate over the controversial depictions of pedophilia and child abuse alongside its reception, Lolita herself is an icon and her trauma is idealised. Even though something may be written or visually is something beautiful, it does not excuse the vulgarity of its true subject matter.

For me personally, I believe that the novel Lolita showcases the lengths a man will go to justify his perverse behaviour and how heterosexual men have turned their sexual gaze towards the juvenile. We watch from Humbert’s point of view as he becomes sexually infatuated with a prepubescent child. Waxing poetic about how seductive she is, is met by the fact that she is only 12 years old. Lolita is no seductress, she is a child. The infantilisation of this character is so heavily sexualised that Delores is no longer seen as a real human being, but a glowing and youthful fantasy as “sexuality is mass produced, deliberately dehumanising and inhuman.” ²   Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. London: Vintage Classic, 2015. Deloris is a powerless victim to her predatory abuser and stepfather. The public knowledge and acceptance over the fact that a 12 year old pre-teen could be sexual, has caused a monopoly effect or rather a Lolita phenomenon of girls that fit into this archetype as deliberate sexual provocateurs. These girls are no longer seen as tragic or sexually abused figures but rather vile projections of fantastical sexual desires.

After stumbling upon Meenakshi Gigi Durham’s 2008 book The Lolita Effect, I became intensely fascinated with the representation of young women not only in these disturbing films but also within media itself. Women’s bodies are cut apart in magazines as toned torsos are centre spread, lips are puckered and identities are stripped away by the removal of personality. Look at Playboy for example: women in tiny school skirts, hugging a teddy bear, pigtails in their hair. In contemporary culture sexuality is sold to all ages, teen magazines do quizzes to see which hot male celebrity you’ll end up with, whilst blown up billboards usually show a young (usually unknown model or actress) alongside her counterpart: a man older than her who is far more established in the same or another industry. Thanks to capitalism we now have objectification: the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object. For Durham, “Lolita has entered our culture as a perverse metaphor… for a child vixen, a knowing coquette with an out-of-control libido, a baby nymphomaniac.” ³   Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do about It. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2009. And yet Deloris is far from any of these descriptions, a young girl stripped from her childhood and provoked into a nonconsensual sexual relationship with Humbert. She’s a victim who unknowingly fit her paedophilic molester’s fantasy and vision. Meanwhile modern culture has labelled Lolita, or girls of the same structure, as hyper sexual and alluring beings whilst marketers exploit a sexual ‘empowerment’ and ‘expression’ as they promote the images of girls running around scantily clad and engaging in adult activities: smoking, drinking, kissing, fucking. And its not like this type of marketing stopped in the early 2000s, only recently did Balenciaga release an add campaign featuring young children under ten years old in a bondage themed photoshoot holding BDSM teddies. But we can’t always blame the media, the idea that everyone is a submissive spectator and consumer just isn’t true.

Opening to the trailer for Lolita, 1962, MGM.

“The sexy girl fascinates us and repels us; she haunts our imagery and our imaginations…she is Lolita.” ⁴ Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do about It. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2009.

Lolita is not the only perpetrator:

It’s not just Kubrick’s and Lyne’s Lolita (1962) that is at fault here. There are sadly an abundance of film that teeter across the moral boundaries of sexual relationships and age. For a while now I’ve been disturbed by Hollywood’s continuous production of these films, although controversial and morally improper, it doesn’t seem to stop the flow of Lolita inspired films. Although I have been compiling a list of films that are extremely problematic in their own representation of a Lolita-like relationship, or sadly submerging itself in that ‘aesthetic’, I will only be signalling out a few of what I deem, the worst perpetrators of the Lolita complex:

Leon: The Professional (Luc Besson, 1994) : I have a particular burning hatred for Luc Besson it must be said. Ever since I watched Leon, every time I see the poster or his face the faint traces of vomit line my mouth. Leon follows the story of an assassin that takes in a young girl whose family has been brutally murdered. This young girl is Mathilda, who Besson dresses up like Marilyn Monroe and has her seductively perform “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.” Furthermore throughout the film Besson films Mathilda/Natalie Portman repeatedly confessing her love for her much older protector. In one scene, which has been cut from the US release, she discusses wanting to lose her virginity to him. What makes me want to throw myself off a building is the fact that Leon is based on some truth. Besson met child actress Maiwenn when she was only 12, and he was 29 and started seeing each other romantically when she was 15, and he was 33. Maiwenn even reveals that “this love story between a 12-year-old girl and a 30-year-old man was still very much inspired by ours.” ⁵ Stern, Marlow. “Luc Besson and the Disturbing True Story behind 'Léon: The Professional'.” The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast Company, May 23, 2018. Link Since Bresson left her for much younger actress, Milla Jovovich, after making The Fifth Element (1997) , Maiwenn has gone onto become an established filmmaker, with her 2011 film Polisse which follows the story of a photographer assigned to follow a Child Protection Unit that tracks down pedophiles and rescues young sexually exploited children.

Pretty Baby (Louis Malle, 1978) : After being forced into a nude Playboy photoshoot at just 10 years old, Brooke Shields then booked the lead role as a child prostitute in Pretty Baby where in one scene they auction off her virginity. Later in 1980, she was photographed by Richard Avedon in a provocative ad for Calvin Klein Jeans and also starred in Blue Lagoon (Randal Kleiser) , a film that shows how people will go to ridiculous lengths to justify incest and sexualising minors. In 1981 she starred in Endless Love (Franco Zeffirelli) as a 15 year old who is in an abusive and passionate relationship with a 17 year old - even though the male actor was 23 and Shields was 15/16. Garry Gross (the photographer of her Playboy photoshoot) labelled Shields reputation as one of a “young vamp and a harlot, a seasoned sexual veteran, a provocative child-woman, an erotic and sensual sex symbol, the Lolita of her generation.” ⁶   Turner, Christopher. “Sugar and Spice and All Things Not so Nice.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 3, 2009. Link It depresses me so much how Shields’ innocence and childhood was taken away from her, not only by the authoritative men in her life, but also by her mother.

The Lover (Jean-Jacques Annaud, 1992) : in an attempt to romanticise and eroticise non-stop statutory rape and pedophilia with beautiful cinematography does not work! The age gap relationship between a minor and an older man, is not “reckless and forbidden” in a romantic way, but actually in a very creepy and illegal way. Even the tag line on the poster “she gave him her innocence, her passion and her body.” I mean are these guys really serious?!? Even her characters name is ‘The Young Girl’, and the synopsis, don’t even get me started: “she has control, and she wields it deftly over her besotted lover.” The Lover is the Lolita for those who want to romanticise colonialism. I cannot begin to try and explain further how a child is unable to understand romance and sex, especially in the company of an adult. The Lover and Lolita try to paint their women as the seducers, but our male leads have a warped perception as they present themselves as unreliable narrators of certain events and obscuring the truth. It also saddens me to mention that the film itself is also based on Marguerite Duras’ autobiographical novel of the same premise. Unlike Lolita which is fiction, The Lover is a stomach-churning account of a truthful non-consented relationship and the destruction of adolsencence.

dishonourable mentions: The Crush (Alan Shapiro, 1993) , Claire’s Knee (Eric Rohmer, 1970) , The Diary of a Teenage Girl (Marielle Heller, 2015) , The Beautiful Person (Christophe Honore 2008) , Licorice Pizza (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2021) , American Beauty (Sam Mendes, 1999) , Lola/Twinky (Richard Donner, 1970) , The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967) , Down the Valley (David Jacobson, 2005) , Palo Alto (Gia Coppola, 2013) , Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979) and The Reader (Stephen Daldry, 2008) - just to name a few. I must also mention that this paedophilic trend in cinema is not anchored or reserved to only visually present relationships between young girls and older men. Some of the films I have mentioned also include the gross relationship dynamic between the young boy and the older woman. We must be aware that not every pedophile or abuser ever is a man, they can also be a woman.

The moment the predator meets its prey:

Lolita (Kubrick, 1962) and Lolita (Lyne, 1997)

LEFT: Kubrick's version of Lolita, 1962, MGM. RIGHT: Lyne's version of Lolita, 1997, Pathé.

The misinterpretation of Lolita as a love story in modern pop culture frustrates me. Although Deloris is described throughout the films and the novel as the ‘instigator’ of the relationship it does not mean that it is consensual. This is not a relationship to be validated but one for the viewer or reader to be both angered and disgusted by. Lolita is so deeply sickening. A film that is able to disturb does not mean it is a good film. Even if a controversial subject matter is coated in saturnine colours, hazy lighting and casting an attractive actor in the lead. However, Kubrick’s 1962 version is devoid of any colour or life, perfect for the idea that Deloris is stripped of one. Why should a film so grotesque in subject matter be so beautiful? For Lolita, the monsters can be anyone, even an intelligent and handsome professor. In my own opinion, I believe that both Kubrick and Lyne disregard Nabokov’s showcase of Humbert’s gradual descent and his justifications for his abuse of power and instead decide to focus on Lolita and her agency. Lolita has no influence on Humbert, a narcissist that is unable to change. The novel really has nothing to do with Lolita herself. Humbert hides his indiscretions in flowery, poetic descriptions and words whilst bewitching the audience making them believe he is a high-minded individual who values romance, culture, innocence and purity when in fact he is a misogynistic misanthropic man who desires control. Humbert is a delusional man who he expects Deloris to ‘love’ (obey) him, he plays with her like a doll as she becomes a spectacle for sexual gratification.

Lolita is an exploration into exploitation and manipulation and the first ‘meeting’ between both Humbert and Lolita are key to these developing themes. Both Kubrick and Lyne establish a connection between the characters not through touch but through sight. An innocence of looking will soon be dashed though. Kubrick’s Lolita lays out sunbathing in a bikini and a feathered hat, a child dressed like a woman. The feline up turn of her sunglasses is reminiscent of the flamboyant cat-eye design made popular in post-war America. The gaze held by these sunglasses also embody both a sultry and feminine energy, imbued with mystery whilst also having the ability to captivate.The style of these sunglasses were designed in the 1930s as an experimentation to exaggerate the eyes, it’s ironic though the shades hide them, after all they are the windows to the soul. Although a cats-eye is believed to help ward off evil, it seems the inability to see the eyes creates a paradox as the sunglasses shield her identity but will not shield her from Humbert. Being stripped of her identity by the black rims of her sunglasses, she is instead defined by her scantily dressed body. A body that spreads itself across the frame. In Kubrick’s version the audience is introduced to Lolita before Humbert is, able to catch a glimpse of her before she is aware or tainted by Humbert’s presence.

In Lyne’s depiction of this meeting, we see Humbert’s reaction to Lolita before we get to see her. Depriving the ability to see her, allows Humbert to have control over what the audience can see. Deloris lays on the floor, her legs up in the air like a child’s as she reads a magazine, unaware of Humbert’s gaze. The addition of sprinklers in this scene makes her costume of a floral dress cling to her body. Although she is not scantly clad, her layer of clothing becomes see-through, enabling Humbert to look directly at her and see underneath. The camera tracks in slowly from a medium close up to a close up enabling us to understand Humbert’s interest and underlying desires as his body and focus turns towards her. Both Lolita’s lay still in the frame, they are sexual objects compliant to their surroundings whilst both Humbert’s look down upon their young victims. Here is where the power dynamics begin.

Various Posters for Lolita. LEFT & RIGHT: Lyne's Lolita, 1997, Pathé. LEFT CENTRE & MIDDLE CENTRE: Kubrick's Lolita, 1962, MGM.

I read a review somewhere which I felt encompassed exactly what Humbert and the film itself is like, “a pedophile calling themselves a “lover of nymphettes” is like a murderer calling themselves a “lover of the dead””. Kubrick and Lyne’s Lolita(1962,1997) brings forth the question: Is this a satire of lust, obsession and frustration? Or is it a counter to make a spectacle out of one of the most controversial and uncomfortable examples of its genre? This is not forbidden love, but rather perverted obsession, paranoia and sexual domination. Kubrick’s Lolita opens and closes with the same sequence, bringing the film full circle, revealing to the audience that Humbert (or people like him) will never change. Lolita is encased in paternalistic paedophilic ‘love’, where women are viewed as property in an oppressive patriarchal society. It angers me still that Lolita is glamourised, this is no desirable fantasy for young girls to try to achieve.

For now, Lolita will sit on my bookcase collecting dust.

by Isabel Hodges, November 2022.

References

¹ Gabbard, Krin. “THE CIRCULATION OF SADOMASOCHISTIC DESIRE IN THE LOLITA TEXTS.” Journal of Film and Video 46, no. 2 (1994): 19–30.

² Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. London: Vintage Classic, 2015.

³, ⁴ Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do about It. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2009.

⁵ Stern, Marlow. “Luc Besson and the Disturbing True Story behind 'Léon: The Professional'.” The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast Company, May 23, 2018. Link

⁶ Turner, Christopher. “Sugar and Spice and All Things Not so Nice.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 3, 2009. Link