Maynard Southern wrote:
I think Stanley Kubrick covered it pretty well. Of course, in addition to remaking "Lolita", some other genius also produced a remake of "The Shining"...made for tv, no less. So whadda I know. I'm gonna go make my own version of Michelangelo's "David" and see if I can make a few bucks. Later.

cute answer.

Do you prefer to read a book or to watch a movie?

I wouldn't go far with this, but basically to your response I'll just say:
Using your own imagination is safer for society, as the images created and consumed by somebody else kill the creativity and lead to the other unappealing social process'.

Madcitychel wrote:
cute answer.

Do you prefer to read a book or to watch a movie?

I wouldn't go far with this, but basically to your response I'll just say:
Using your own imagination is safer for society, as the images created and consumed by somebody else kill the creativity and lead to the other unappealing social process'.

I've read the majority of Nabakov's books. I've also seen all of Kubrick's movies. He remained as true to the book as the time period allowed. I'll gladly consume his images any day.

If you follow your logic, no one should look at any other "art" to be on the safe and imaginative side, and if no one should consume others' images in order to avoid unappealing social processes, I reckon we might as well not produce any sort of imagery, because the consumation of said imagery is harming everyone's ability to create...

So if you produce a photograph of Lo', you are going against your own statement.

And it is Humbert Humbert, not "Gumbert" (weird images of Gumby molesting preteens running through my head).

Madcitychel wrote:
Thanks!!!
I gained a few things, I think it'd be kind-a interesting to use big glasses (Mom's stuff), along with the overwhelmed jewelry, plus I got more ideas in my head about the "set/poses" and stuff.

I like the 1st picture on the second post.  The first I liked the image, I think it'd look very close if she had less determined poses.
Very cool, thanks!

PS: Did you that sort of idea for these pics?

Glad I could help.

Not really...the sessions were built around the idea, however after seeing the locations and outfits, different ideas came to mind in subtle ways...I always try to have a free approach to these types of ideas...if it has been done before I never want to copy them or repeat them....so I keep a general direction in mind but never go overboard with it.

Cheers

Wolf

Maynard Southern wrote:
I've read the majority of Nabakov's books. I've also seen all of Kubrick's movies. He remained as true to the book as the time period allowed. I'll gladly consume his images any day.

That is from your point of view, right? Or is that a commonly accepted one?

What if see her different when I read the book? Is that a crime? I can't have my own image of her that I had in my mind when I was reading the book?

Maynard Southern wrote:
If you follow your logic, no one should look at any other "art" to be on the safe and imaginative side, and if no one should consume others' images in order to avoid unappealing social processes, I reckon we might as well not produce any sort of imagery, because the consumation of said imagery is harming everyone's ability to create...

Sorry, but if you follow my logic correctly and without pre-supposed opinios, you'd have a different conclusion.

Maynard Southern wrote:
So if you produce a photograph of Lo', you are going against your own statement.

I don't understand.

Maynard Southern wrote:
And it is Humbert Humbert, not "Gumbert" (weird images of Gumby molesting preteens running through my head).

There is no letter "H" in Russian, I didn't know what would be the correct spelling of his name in English, but I am glad you understood who I was talking about.
)

Wolf189 wrote:

Glad I could help.

Not really...the sessions were built around the idea, however after seeing the locations and outfits, different ideas came to mind in subtle ways...I always try to have a free approach to these types of ideas...if it has been done before I never want to copy them or repeat them....so I keep a general direction in mind but never go overboard with it.

Cheers

Wolf

I think that is the best approach, as each person could have their input and something else would turn out -other then before.

I totally loved the last one - not "lolita" at all as I would imagine, but I really like it.

Madcitychel wrote:

I think that is the best approach, as each person could have their input and something else would turn out -other then before.

I totally loved the last one - not "lolita" at all as I would imagine, but I really like it.

Glad that you enjoyed it.

Cheers

Wolf

alexwh wrote:
Not one posted picture in this thread that in any way resembles the movie Lolita (Sue Lyons) who appeared with James Mason. The  picture in the enclosed poster was taken by no other than Bert Stern. During several day's shooting he found the glasses (seen here) in a drugstore near the set. The glasses became the ikon of Lolita.
Alexwh

Interesting.)

You always come up with some "story" for everything, like a walking encyclopedia
I mean it in a good way

Wolf189 wrote:

Madcitychel wrote:
I know that there is a movie that was made in the U.S. and based on this book, but I haven't spoiled my imagination with the movie yet and really want to try and recreate the "Lolita" image.

Spoil the imagination? In what sense? It was about rape and child sex abuse. What's there to spoil?

On top of that it was badly written, I thought.

Fotticelli wrote:

Spoil the imagination? In what sense? It was about rape and child sex abuse. What's there to spoil?

On top of that it was badly written, I thought.

This had been said in regards to general concept, not about the Novell in particular.

But, since you have mentioned:
The Novell itself only a reader could judge; just like in photogrophy one might find a beauty in the shot, the other one finds ugly.

I like the book because:
It creates strong Characters (not every writer could possibly! do that);
It involves an open question for discussion on different levels by a different reader.

As I have mentioned before, the "spoiled imagination" was my implication in general terms regarding the crowd's effect by a representation of one's view's (The Novell "Lolita" by a Movie Director).

Perhaps there is a  point that you have in your statement, but I personally see many other ideas and thoughts beyond "child abuse" in this Novell.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Nabokov was an astoundingly good and sophisticated writer.  As a writer, he's difficult to read without an appreciation of literature, and that's not taught much anymore short of university courses.

I began "Pale Fire" (said to be his best novel) recently, and found it to be very difficult.  I will have to begin it again, I'm afraid.

Watching a movie is a poor alternative to reading a book.  Detail and nuance must be dropped for brevity, local sensibilities must be taken into account, and the story is spoon fed to the audience, which cannot have the full flavored experience of investing the imagination.  I did see the latest of the "Lolita" movies in a theater in Ankara, Turkiye, several years ago.  The critical response in Turkiye was that the book had been watered down for Americans.  I agree.  "Watered down" in this case meant having the complexity removed in favor of the naughty bits.

No matter; no movie can be as involving as a book.  And few books take as much effort to read as Nabokov's.  Books, like anything, are generally worth the effort one applies to them.

-Don

P.S.  I have not tried to do a Lolita picture, as I don't photograph minors.

Books, like anything, are generally worth the effort one applies to them.

I like that saying.

Many people say that it's hard to read Nabokov.  I would agree, but you are so exactly right: it's worth the effort.
The characters he created in my imagination have been living with me for about 10 years now or so...

PS:
Now, hoenstly, Dude, did you think so, I you was just worried about your eye

Madcitychel wrote:
Many people say that it's hard to read Nabokov.

Oh, no--he's terrific.  You'll have a ball.  In fact, before you shoot anything, enjoy the book.  By turns honest, hilarious, pathetic, and horrifying, Lolita is no feast to play off with second-hand impressions.  Read it for yourself.  Then put together your tribute.

commart wrote:

Oh, no--he's terrific.  You'll have a ball.  In fact, before you shoot anything, enjoy the book.  By turns honest, hilarious, pathetic, and horrifying, Lolita is no feast to play off with second-hand impressions.  Read it for yourself.  Then put together your tribute.

I enjoyed it very much - and that is pretty much the reason I am interested to do this image. (before I see the movie). yap.

Madcitychel wrote:
Interesting.)

You always come up with some "story" for everything, like a walking encyclopedia
I mean it in a good way

Macitychel I am not a walking encyclopedia, I am just old with a very good memory. Bert Stern invented cleavage photography ( I don't think he would ever admit it) for the early covers of Cosmopolitan. He is the photographer most responsible for the myth the photographers get women, drugs, booze and all kind of fringe benefits. This is partly because he got all of that. He convinced Smirnoff Vodka to send him to Egypt to photograph a vodka martini by the pyramids. Right now there is an extremely sucessful show of his photographs of Marilyn Monroe in Paris that is taking the city by storm. Stern was responsible for all those images of Lolita that some of us old guys carry in our head.

But best of all if you can study some of Stern's photographs he mastered the ability to remove all that was not necessary to make a photograph be what he made it to be. He also pioneered the perfect white background (not easy if you don't use Photoshop).

And here is another picture of Lolita (Sue Lyon) by Bert Stern.

Madcitychel wrote:
Did anybody try to recreate the image of Lolita?

I know that there is a movie that was made in the U.S. and based on this book, but I haven't spoiled my imagination with the movie yet and really want to try and recreate the "Lolita" image. (Before I am too old in particular).


The way I see it:

Clumsy childish swimsiut or comfy long shirt, loose hair/partiually pulled back, invisible make up, big knitted socks, short bitten, bright nails with chopped polish, a bruse on the upper leg and sharp knees.

The part I remember the best in the book is when she was watching Gumbert from her room's window and when she was in the garden - so those I think of as a set for the picture.  I think the other good picture would be from the scene when they were driving together and were fighting over her gum.

Do you guys have any image close to this if so - I'd appreciate the link.
Any intputs would be awesome.
THX!

That's a great idea though.  I wish I had thought of it 6 months ago.  My body has been changing greatly, so I don't look like a little girl as much anymore.

Miss Anya wrote:
But Lolita is Lolita because she is seductive with her innocence, not her "sexy look".

Agreed.. she's a child, not a woman role-playing as a child.

pegasusmaiden wrote:
In my opinion Wolf189's examples are not very lolita, they are just regular teens in cheap lingerie.  Does not cut it for me as lolita. It does not carry the impression of a seductive pre-teen, who knows how to carry an air of sexuality.   A vixen in a little package.  Like an almost ripe peach on a low hanging branch.  Almost ripe, easily attained, but just a little too tart to be fully tasted.  So the wait becomes the suspense.

From what I remember from the movie and the impression from the book.  Lolita knows what she wants and she is a pre-teen that understood the desires of adults.  Her lure is her innocent appearance in contrast to her dark knowledge of seduction and desire. 

A better example would be from Kassandra's port



I would suggest lighter make-up tho, however this feels the closest for me.  I am sure there are other photos, but on top of my head this is the one I remembered.

Those shot were done without any planning to be look like Lolita! (as I have written on top too)

However your observation is simply a personal point of view and a wrong one in my opinion.

"Teens in cheap lingerie" (as you put it) could be just another way of presenting a Lolita concept anyway. It's really not that cut and dry.
If you read and see something and they leave certain impression on you it doesn't mean that they have to mean the same thing to everybody else.
That's why we can find unlimited ways to express the same truth, idea or concept.
...so your approach here is rather a naïve one...just like if somebody says..."where are the iconic glasses of Lolita or why she is not sucking on something colorful?"

While your example is fun but it's as far as possible to Lolita in my mind. It's way over done and almost "cartoon"ish . More similar to Anime characters...a skin deep character without any mystery to itself.
She is "on" her look and knows that we are on it as well. Lolita learned everything little by little by following certain instincts and of course the push and shove of situations...that was a human growth odyssey of some kind...which it doesn't come across in your proposed image at all. It's actually more like a pro shot for certain websites without any organic feel to it.

One major key concept here is being "organic" which can keeps it real and gives a bit of guilt back to the audience. A small amount of anxiety in return or we'll fall right into straight-cheesy-wrong-erotica instead....because Lolita was an innocent child after all....or started from there anyway.

The shots similar to your example don't tell a story usually because there is no past or future to them...there are simply bubble gums of this style which will last as long as the bubbles last. (A bit of a radical personal opinion which might show you a different perspective).

Again, this is not to say that my shots were great or even good.

Best of luck.

Cheers

Wolf

Madcitychel wrote:
Besides,
I will poke you in the eye if you are going to say something mean about it.

He sucks. The book sucked.

I couldn't finish it. I was on vacation in a tent on a small island, I was stranded for three days. It was either reading his book or going outside, sitting in the rain and watching the grass grow.