So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
He refers to deviations from the book…I see what you did there…
A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
11–20 of 143 posts
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#12So, why can they publish it now? His death doesn’t nullify the agreement, does it?
I would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete assets. Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this. "it depends"
Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place?
It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#13So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
Well, she is a “nymphette” in the book. That novel is so well written and not even in the author’s native language.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#14So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
Kubrick’s film simplified the psychological depth and literary nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and satire in the film, partly as a way to address the censorship regulations of the time. This approach changes the tone from the intensely personal and tragic to something lighter and more accessible, though still deeply disturbing.
Note that Nabokov was credited as the screenplay writer for the movie (Kubrick is uncredited). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/fullcredits/
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#15So, why can they publish it now? His death doesn’t nullify the agreement, does it?
I don't think a contract still stands when one of the party do not exists anymore.
And dead people don't have rights past what they have decided on inheritance and even this can be sometimes overturned by justice. This is the reason wealthy people sometimes give their wealth to a foundation but if the foundation doesn't find a way to make it sustainable and money runs out it also ends up dissolved regardless of the cause it was bound to serve.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#16Doesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it. He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never published.
From the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#17So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
Kubrick’s film simplified the psychological depth and literary nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and satire in the film, partly as a way to addr…
The criticism seems pretty fair. Not sure how filmable the book is especially given the constraints of the time.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete assets. Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this. "it depends"
Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place? It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
My understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#19> "There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism."
I think anyone who has read Nabokov's novel would agree that Lolita really isn't a great adaptation of the book. I think it is by far Kubrick's weakest film. There is a deep cynic darkness to the book that the movie misses completely. In later interviews, Kubrick always tried to downplay this and only admitted that the movie lacked eroticism:
> "If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component of their relationship with the same weight Nabokov did," the director admitted. "But that is the only major area where I believe the film is susceptible to valid criticism."
I sometimes wonder how a Lolita movie by Francis Ford Coppola would've turned out (maybe with Gene Hackman).
Re: A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place? It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
My understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.
Contracts to personal affairs not real property, I believe would terminate on his death unless deliberately constructed to use e.g. a trust. I repeat, I'm not a lawyer.