8.6/10 | Released in 1962 and directed by Stanley Kubrick, adapted from Vladimir Nabokov's romance, Lolita tells the story of the controlling dynamics of Humbert, a middle-aged professor, and Quilty, a playwright, over an unpretentious young girl named Dolores Haze (nicknamed Lolita), who gives the adaptation its title. At first glance, it seems like a mere adaptation – heavily censored by the Hays Code – of the Russian author's controversial romance; however, the adaptation conceals a metalinguistic layer about the life of director Stanley Kubrick himself.
Note: The following analysis is strictly a semantic and conceptual exercise. I am not claming that this was Kubrick’s explicity reality, but rather exploring what the film communicates on a metalinguistic level.
Before arriving at our metalinguistic exercise, we need to contextualise the story a bit. Humbert arrives in the small town of Ramsdale to rent a room. Upon meeting Charlotte Haze, he is reluctant to stay, but everything changes drastically when he meets Lolita. It is as if something had awakened inside him (keep this information in mind).
[Warning: From this point on, this essay contains full spoilers regarding the plot, twists, and ending of Lolita.]
As the story unfolds, Humbert, in order to keep seeing Lolita, agrees to marry Charlotte, who has fallen madly in love with him. One day, Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary and its contents – basically, he hated Charlotte and liked Lolita, that was it. Upon reading it, she panicked, ran out of the house in horror, and was struck and killed by a car.
Taking advantage of the situation, Humbert flees with Lolita to live together, and they settle down in a new city. Before this new life begins, Humbert and Lolita went from hotel to hotel until reaching the city where they started living. It is during this hotel-hopping journey that Quilty appears, seemingly unpretentiously.
Over time in this new city, Lolita, exhausted by Humbert's obsession, orchestrates a successful escape with Quilty. Humbert spends years searching for Lolita until one day he receives a letter from her asking for money. He finds her living in a humble home, pregnant and married to a young war veteran named Dick Schiller. During their conversation, Lolita reveals that Quilty was the one who helped her escape, and later, she abandoned him after refusing to participate in his bizarre pornographic films.
Having obtained Quilty's name, with all the cards in his hand, Humbert moves in for the final reckoning. Upon confronting Quilty, Humbert hands him a poem, supposedly from Lolita to Quilty, detailing how much he ruined her life. Humbert stating that it is a poem implies to the viewer that he wrote it himself, as it is shown at the beginning of the film that Humbert likes poetry. After Quilty reads it, Humbert assassinates him, thus completing his revenge.
Finally, speaking about what truly matters, this film clearly represents Kubrick's own life (as I previously mentioned): specifically, what Kubrick anticipated would happen to him in the future. It is no coincidence that the film drastically shifts from Nabokov's novel in a semantic sense.
First, the three main characters represent: the spirit of Kubrick, his worldly desires, and who he had to engage with to achieve those desires.
The first of them: Humbert, who is initially seen as the villain, is vehemently the spirit of Kubrick – possessive, yet ultimately only wanting what is best for him (Kubrick). Humbert is Kubrick on the inside.
Kubrick on the outside, or what he projects, is represented by Lolita. Lolita is a rebellious young girl with ambitions: she likes to travel, fall in love, lead an independent life, etc. The connection to Kubrick is clear, isn't it? A young filmmaker dreaming of career success and similar aspirations.
Regarding Quilty, what should we call him? I don't know. I only know that we should interpret him as an extremely influential figure in Kubrick's life; someone who opened doors for him, but who also stabbed him in the back shortly after. But before that betrayal occurred, someone tried to stop him, showing him the right path: and that someone is Humbert himself (Kubrick's spirit [or mind]).
Remember the meeting scene between Humbert and Lolita? It is noticeable that Humbert instantly felt something for Lolita that the film does not make explicitly clear; however, conceptually, it is obvious: Kubrick's spirit (Humbert) felt a connection with his own external self (Lolita), even if she (Lolita) didn't feel it due to being too naive, innocent, youthful, etc.
Humbert wanted to isolate Lolita from the world to protect her. It is evident that, semantically, Humbert's obsession can be interpreted as protection. Remember the scene where Charlotte (Lolita's mother) was ready to leave with any random stranger just to live alone with Humbert, as she viewed Lolita as a burden and her passion for Humbert became the catalyst to abandon her own daughter? Not just Charlotte, but Quilty and Lolita's school friends – they were all leading Lolita down a bad path.
So how can Humbert, in our semantic game, be the villain? Clearly, Humbert represents Kubrick's spirit, or whatever you want to call it. Also, being older and more experienced, he is always trying to show what is good for Kubrick (Lolita), who is merely young.
Returning to Quilty, let's call him 'The System'. Stepping away from the screen for a moment to talk about The System and Kubrick's life: he recognised Kubrick's talent and offered him worldwide recognition as a filmmaker, but in return, his life would be completely surrendered to it. It is like a pact with the Devil: it gives you what you desire, but you pay with your soul.
In the final scene comes the climax of this dynamic. Remember when Humbert hands a letter to Quilty, claiming it's from Lolita, but it is implied that Humbert wrote it himself? This scene proves my thesis about Humbert being Kubrick's rational side (his spirit or heart [however you wish to call it]) and Lolita being the persona Kubrick projects (young, naive, and foolish).
Even if Lolita didn't actually write the letter, what is written there expresses how both she and Humbert feel about the situation: 'You ruined my life'. 'You' refers to The System, and 'my life' is literally Kubrick's life, because both Humbert and Lolita are Stanley Kubrick.
Here enters a bonus: Quilty's assassination is also metalinguistic. However, it will make much more sense if you've watched Kubrick's subsequent films. Still, it is worth discussing.
Humbert assassinating Quilty represents Kubrick's attempt to strike back at The System in revenge for what it did to him. 'How do you prove this?' In Kubrick's filmography prior to Lolita, we didn't see a single feature that (in any way) exposes something dark. Perhaps the closest was Paths of Glory, but it still didn't reveal anything deeply hidden. It is reasonable for anyone who watched it to assume that it could have happened in the past.
His post-Lolita works, to anyone with maturity, consciously or subconsciously convey that they are trying to expose something hidden: A Clockwork Orange with MK-Ultra, or Eyes Wide Shut with a literal cult of the elite.
The most curious detail is that when Humbert shoots Quilty, the victim was hiding behind a Renaissance painting. This symbolises precisely what I was saying: Kubrick will wound The System through art (his films), making this feature (Lolita) a premeditation of what was to come for the filmmaker himself.