I’ve seen “Taxi Driver” as well as both of the “Lolita” films, so was excited to find Siegel’s article through my research. With an academic interest in how film shapes belief systems and defines (or redefines) cultural norms, Siegel’s article encouraged my thought about the connection between the respective storylines and the long-term (negative) emotional impact of (inappropriate) the respective relationships with older men on the juvenile female characters in each of the films. While the incest motif is clearly evident in each film, I had not previously linked the two nor considered them as an appropriate double feature.
I was struck by the lack on content available through Ablah Library about “Lolita “(1962) – at least as directly related to the critical analysis of film at the time of its release – given the controversy that surrounded the film when it was released and the enduring stature of its director and key actors. Content was readily available on “Lolita” (1997), most of which compared the two film versions of the story or was appropriately weighted by sociological analysis.
This cursory investigation of resources immediately available through the Ablah Library would direct my further research on this above referenced films towards a textual analysis of the two film versions of Lolita versus Nabokov’s original novel.
Prioleau offers a fascinating comparison of Nabokov’s imprisonment theme in her article, using Lewis Carroll’s Alice stories as a basis for analysis. This points to the complexity of the Lolita story and begs the ongoing question, “Can a film accurately illustrate its original text?”
By contrast, “Taxi Driver” is not encumbered by this question. However as an original entity, the film itself must bear full responsibility for introducing the film-going public to Travis Brick. I’m not sure which is worse: a character like Brick, who so obviously can’t hide his disturbances; Or Humbert, who hides his behind mask, allowing him a public face that is far from threatening.
Sharrett discusses postmodern theory’s notion of apocalypse as final catastrophe and I find this an excellent launching point for discourse analysis of the Brick and Humbert characters. Both characters are outsiders, imprisoned by their loneliness and alienation. The commonalities in their self-destructive paths include a need to repair the past, struggles balancing fantasy and reality, obsession, and a pivotal relationship with a mature but very young girl.
While “Taxi Driver” and “Lolita” differ in tone, style and perhaps even audience, they are quite similar thematically and pair nicely for future research.
Films
“Lolita” (1962)
“Lolita ” (1997)
“Taxi Driver” (1976) – the collector’s edition of the film is available on VHS at the Ablah Library. The item is currently checked out.
References
Lolita (1962) screenplay
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (1955)
via JSTOR:
Film Quarterly film review by Michael Dempsey (Taxi Driver)
Film Quarterly film review by Devin McKinney (Lolita, 1997)
“Affliction and Forgiveness: An Interview with Paul Schrader” by Michael Bliss (Film Quarterly, Vol. 54, No.1)
“Humbert Humbert Through the Looking Glass” by Elizabeth Prioleau (Twentieth Century Literature, 1975)
“The Influence of Violence in the Mass Media on Children’s Role Expectations” by Alberta Engvall Siegel (Child Development, Vol. 29, No. 1)
Crisis Cinema: The Apocalyptic Idea in Postmodern Narrative Film book review by Christopher Sharrett.
Other online resources:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/
New York Times film review by Bosley Crowther (Lolita, 1962)
Chicago Sun-Times film review by Roger Ebert (Taxi Driver)