Novel to Film, Frame to Window: Lolita as Text and Image

Burke, Ken

doi:10.1080/23796529.2001.11674576

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proof of this is synthesised in each of the ten examples provided, some because they are replicated in 1997 (example 4) and are easy to compare, and others (examples 5, 9, 10) because they are absent, so that the absence of a humorous scene or the way it is dealt with is telling of authorial intent and resulting effect. Ultimately, both Kubrick and Nabokov, and critics and scholars long after them (Burke, 2003, Richards, 2012, Duckett, 2014, Biltereyst, 2015 understood that artistic quality (literary or audiovisual) is a more worthwhile goal than likeness, almost in the vein of belles infidèles, so well known in translation studies. This view of translation could be applied to film adaptation as translation (Catrysse, 1992), and to the translation of humour, when comic effect is a high priority (Zabalbeascoa, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Censoring Lolita’s sense of humor: when translation affects the audience’s perception

Zabalbeascoa¹

2021

Ideology, Censorship and Translation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many reasons for taking an academic interest in both Nabokov's 1955 novel, Lolita, and its 1962 film adaptation by Kubrick. Not least of these is the interest per se of their work, in their quality (in both senses of the word) despite any controversy due to the theme chosen. Both works are growing in prestige. Their artists have a gift for provocation, but that alone is not enough for them to emerge as giants of literature and film-making. The point of interest here is the humorous nature of their work, and how that relates back to the nature of humour, and how all of this is relevant to translation studies, as illustrated in the examples presented. A useful measure for this venture is Adrian Lyne's own 1997 film version of Lolita, claiming as it does to be a more faithful rendering of the book than the 1962 one. Kubrick and Lyne both reflect much of Nabokov's novel, but only Kubrick's is (classified as) comedy. All other things being equal, mostly, this provides unique insight into the nature of humour (at least in comedy) and the benefits of translating it to be funny and, to fit the genre of comedy. We find that sex and taboo are alluded to by Kubrick in words and images, whereas Lyne is more visually explicit. The aim of this paper is to show a case study of how censorship, taboo and ideological misconceptions of an author's work can affect its perception by the public, so that it becomes unclear whether popular images of Lolita as a fictional character are a cause or a consequence of certain translations and new film versions such as Adrian Lyne's.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impact of these forces is evident on nearly every level of the film art, including the elaboration of the story line, very concrete actions, on character development, casting, the use (and absence) of very particular words and expressions, or on themes, as well as how very concrete scenes are filmed and edited. (Burke, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%