This movie was made over a decade before the first home videocassette recorder was offered to the public, it was made to be shown on a screen, where people's attention was focused on the dialog, not the paper. It's a prop. As far as Stanley knew, people would see this movie once and then never again once it was gone from theaters, leaving virtually no one able to rewatch, pause and rewind to over examine every frame. Too many Kubrick fans focus on these ridiculously minute details and extrapolate an entirely new plot based on the fact that many things on a movie set are fake, or not a perfect analog to the real world.
Thanks for the comment. I'm pinning it. >This movie was made over a decade before the first home videocassette recorder was offered to the public, it was made to be shown on a screen, where people's attention was focused on the dialog, not the paper. It's a prop. You think so? Lolita (1962): A middle-aged college professor becomes infatuated with a 14-year-old girl. The story is told from his perspective, blurring the lines between obsession and reality. (Story is told by an Unreliable Narrator) Sure the letter is a prop and there is no reason to have light bleed thru the pages, unless Stanley Kubrick wanted the audience to see that there was no writing on the pages. This prop was really intended to those that took the book Lolita and treat it like a Detective Horror Novel. You know the Serious readers that the Foreword was talking about. So if you didn't read the book as a Detective Horror Novel, then you would believe Charlotte wrote the letter and HH married her, she dies by getting hit by a car (but don't worry she was going to die anyway)... But if you read the book like a Detective - you'll noticed Humbert talks with lots of BS spewing from his lips. >As far as Stanley knew, people would see this movie once and then never again once it was gone from theaters, leaving virtually no one able to rewatch, pause and rewind to over examine every frame. Actually, your wrong. You don't need to freeze frame this scene. I'm only freezing framing the scenes because I don't want to get copyright strike. Also, I believe once I've pointed it out, you're not going to unsee the shadows and the lack of words on the pages. As for repeat ticket sales - are you kidding? As for rewatching scenes by frames (before home video recorders) - You do realize Psycho (1960) shower scene is analyzed frame by frame in film schools, because the editing is that damn good. >Too many Kubrick fans focus on these ridiculously minute details and extrapolate an entirely new plot based on the fact that many things on a movie set are fake, or not a perfect analog to the real world. I'm not sure what's the problem is. Did me showing you the letter has blank pages destroyed your viewing experience? Wait till I get to the band-aids - OMG you might loose it. Seriously, I'm open for these debates, I could go into details on how Stanley Kubrick and Nabokov pulled a fast one. I'm not sure if you read the book, that's why I posted the letter from the book. So, you can read it, and notice how this letter makes Kidnapping and Raping a child seemed less offensive. Why would Charlotte suggest this? Because - according to my Detective Hat and Pipe - She didn't write the letter. Humbert wants the reader THINK that Kidnapping and Raping Dolores was NOT HIS ORIGINAL INTENTIONS because the suggestion didn't come from him. But we know based on his actions this was his intentions. Thanks and I'm happy for your reply and I hope you'll follow it up.
Interesting that in the book there's a more graphic part not included in the movie. Since Humbert is unreliable narrator i guess the letter isn't even real, we are just seeing the events from his perspective with the objective of deceiving the viewer.
Thanks :) Once you realized that Humbert is an Unreliable Narrator, the question is how can we tell the truth. This is tricky because Humbert tells the truth, but he twists it to make him sound less evil, pathetic. But he's manipulating the reader/audience with these emotions while boasting/bragging his evils. Think American Psycho, but instead the kills being imaginary, the rapes/kills are real. I believe David Lynch knows this that's why Lolita is his favorite Stanley Kubrick movie. Why most people believe the story is about a pathetic pedo and not realizing Humbert is a Serial Rapist and a Serial Killer... I guess Nabokov book perfectly manipulated most of the readers.
I agree that the way he is holding the pages and the envelope, and the light shining on the pages, looks odd, and makes me look for some meaning in the pattern, but I am not a fan of "this never happened" explanations. Too much work for me. I will say this letter scene kind of reminds me of a letter scene in a movie I really like called "Murder, She Said". A rich young woman gets a letter from a French girl who says she was married to the rich girl's brother who was killed in WWII two days after they married. She reads this letter to her father's doctor, who is also her secret boyfriend. She is very upset because the dead body of an unknown girl in French clothes was just found in a barn on the family estate, and she thinks one of the male members of her family killed the unknown girl and hid the body, because he didn't want the girl to become an heir to the family fortune. But later we find out, the doctor is evil and he had his wife write the letter, then he killed her, then he staged everything with the intent of killing off most of the family members and marrying the rich girl and inheriting everything. So the dead body was his wife, and there was no French girl. At the end of the movie, this is all explained, because the new maid in the family is actually an amateur detective who witnessed the murder and wanted to find the killer. Which she does, it's the doctor, and he has also been killing off the male members of the family, one by one. But we don't find out any of this until much later. So, just saying, there COULD be a whole other story behind the letter Humbert is reading. But I prefer the script to reveal the plot. And there has to be some point to the letter being a fake. What's in it for Humbert to tell people there was a letter?
After I wrote this, I realized the plot of Murder, She Said either doesn't make a lot of sense or I don't remember the details of why the doctor has to make the police think one of the family murdered the girl. And I have watched that movie quite a few times, but it seems like a lousy plan.
>>I agree that the way he is holding the pages and the envelope, and the light shining on the pages, looks odd, and makes me look for some meaning in the pattern, but I am not a fan of "this never happened" explanations. This letter scene seemed to address those that read the book and has a good idea that the letter is fake. I've watched the movie 3 times before reading the book. While watching it I didn't think the letter was fake. But Humbert's laughter seemed evil to me because I know his intentions was to get closer to Dolores. But since I've identified the burnt toast scene early in the movie, my gut feeling is that Charlotte and Dolores are not aware of Humberts plans and he inserts them in his daydreams. I'm not 100% sure but I'm thinking all the scenes without band-aids are daydreams. (I'll explain this in another video) I agree the "this never happened explanations" can be difficult to understand unless you read the book and remember that the book is being told by an Unreliable Narrator. I also want to say the movie was made during the Hays Code (Stanley Kubrick was not the only filmmaker doing stuff to slip by the Hays Code censors). It's been years when I saw "Murder, she said" I have to get back into it one day. >>What's in it for Humbert to tell people there was a letter? To make him sound less of a monster. His plan was to murder Charlotte and kidnap and rape Dolores (I believe he also murdered her too). But he also wants to brag about his intentions. We know that Humbert doesn't like Charlotte. In the book, the letter reads: But if, after reading my "confession," you decided, in your dark romantic European way, that I am attractive enough for you to take advantage of my letter and make a pass at me, then you would be a criminal - worse than a kidnapper who rapes a child. So according to Humbert that he's so evil he takes advantage of his Landlady, but his evil actions of kidnapping and raping Dolores is not that evil. (It's very twisted) In the movie the letter don't get into that detail but if you read the book, you're very aware what's Humberts intentions are (we also have several scenes of Humbert eyeing on Dolores which tells us Humberts intentions)
They all do. Sometimes they are done this way on purpose because the writers of the story are afraid to inspire criminal actions and other times what seemed to make sense at the time becomes convoluted years later. I'll have to watch Murder, She Said. I do want to make a video on Manchurian Candidate from the 1960's (I've watched this movie 4 times and I have several questions), I also got a paperback printed before the release of the movie but I just don't feel like reading now.
@@tankardoftales4645 I read Lolita a couple of times, but probably in the seventies and eighties. Don't remember that much. I need to read it again. I thought Kubrick did not make Humbert creepy enough, and made Lolita too sophisticated, so the point was lost.
@@hermanhale9258 if you read the book again. Treat the Foreword as chapter 1a and chapter 1 as 1b. Keep in mind that Humbert enjoys fooling the experts (and mostlikely the expert writing the Foreword is fooled). Humbert is telling us the story. Charlotte and Dolores words is not their own words. Humbert also hints getting away with murdering Charlotte.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
This movie was made over a decade before the first home videocassette recorder was offered to the public, it was made to be shown on a screen, where people's attention was focused on the dialog, not the paper. It's a prop. As far as Stanley knew, people would see this movie once and then never again once it was gone from theaters, leaving virtually no one able to rewatch, pause and rewind to over examine every frame. Too many Kubrick fans focus on these ridiculously minute details and extrapolate an entirely new plot based on the fact that many things on a movie set are fake, or not a perfect analog to the real world.
Thanks for the comment. I'm pinning it.
>This movie was made over a decade before the first home videocassette recorder was offered to the public, it was made to be shown on a screen, where people's attention was focused on the dialog, not the paper. It's a prop.
You think so?
Lolita (1962): A middle-aged college professor becomes infatuated with a 14-year-old girl. The story is told from his perspective, blurring the lines between obsession and reality. (Story is told by an Unreliable Narrator)
Sure the letter is a prop and there is no reason to have light bleed thru the pages, unless Stanley Kubrick wanted the audience to see that there was no writing on the pages.
This prop was really intended to those that took the book Lolita and treat it like a Detective Horror Novel. You know the Serious readers that the Foreword was talking about.
So if you didn't read the book as a Detective Horror Novel, then you would believe Charlotte wrote the letter and HH married her, she dies by getting hit by a car (but don't worry she was going to die anyway)...
But if you read the book like a Detective - you'll noticed Humbert talks with lots of BS spewing from his lips.
>As far as Stanley knew, people would see this movie once and then never again once it was gone from theaters, leaving virtually no one able to rewatch, pause and rewind to over examine every frame.
Actually, your wrong. You don't need to freeze frame this scene. I'm only freezing framing the scenes because I don't want to get copyright strike. Also, I believe once I've pointed it out, you're not going to unsee the shadows and the lack of words on the pages.
As for repeat ticket sales - are you kidding?
As for rewatching scenes by frames (before home video recorders) - You do realize Psycho (1960) shower scene is analyzed frame by frame in film schools, because the editing is that damn good.
>Too many Kubrick fans focus on these ridiculously minute details and extrapolate an entirely new plot based on the fact that many things on a movie set are fake, or not a perfect analog to the real world.
I'm not sure what's the problem is. Did me showing you the letter has blank pages destroyed your viewing experience? Wait till I get to the band-aids - OMG you might loose it.
Seriously, I'm open for these debates, I could go into details on how Stanley Kubrick and Nabokov pulled a fast one. I'm not sure if you read the book, that's why I posted the letter from the book. So, you can read it, and notice how this letter makes Kidnapping and Raping a child seemed less offensive. Why would Charlotte suggest this? Because - according to my Detective Hat and Pipe - She didn't write the letter. Humbert wants the reader THINK that Kidnapping and Raping Dolores was NOT HIS ORIGINAL INTENTIONS because the suggestion didn't come from him. But we know based on his actions this was his intentions.
Thanks and I'm happy for your reply and I hope you'll follow it up.
Interesting that in the book there's a more graphic part not included in the movie. Since Humbert is unreliable narrator i guess the letter isn't even real, we are just seeing the events from his perspective with the objective of deceiving the viewer.
Thanks :)
Once you realized that Humbert is an Unreliable Narrator, the question is how can we tell the truth. This is tricky because Humbert tells the truth, but he twists it to make him sound less evil, pathetic. But he's manipulating the reader/audience with these emotions while boasting/bragging his evils.
Think American Psycho, but instead the kills being imaginary, the rapes/kills are real.
I believe David Lynch knows this that's why Lolita is his favorite Stanley Kubrick movie.
Why most people believe the story is about a pathetic pedo and not realizing Humbert is a Serial Rapist and a Serial Killer... I guess Nabokov book perfectly manipulated most of the readers.
@hermanhale9258 I'm not seeing my last comment so starting a new thread line. Please post comments here. Thanks.
@hermanhale9258 I think my next video is about Charlie Holmes. I'm finally make this an official release 😊
I agree that the way he is holding the pages and the envelope, and the light shining on the pages, looks odd, and makes me look for some meaning in the pattern, but I am not a fan of "this never happened" explanations. Too much work for me. I will say this letter scene kind of reminds me of a letter scene in a movie I really like called "Murder, She Said". A rich young woman gets a letter from a French girl who says she was married to the rich girl's brother who was killed in WWII two days after they married. She reads this letter to her father's doctor, who is also her secret boyfriend. She is very upset because the dead body of an unknown girl in French clothes was just found in a barn on the family estate, and she thinks one of the male members of her family killed the unknown girl and hid the body, because he didn't want the girl to become an heir to the family fortune. But later we find out, the doctor is evil and he had his wife write the letter, then he killed her, then he staged everything with the intent of killing off most of the family members and marrying the rich girl and inheriting everything. So the dead body was his wife, and there was no French girl. At the end of the movie, this is all explained, because the new maid in the family is actually an amateur detective who witnessed the murder and wanted to find the killer. Which she does, it's the doctor, and he has also been killing off the male members of the family, one by one. But we don't find out any of this until much later. So, just saying, there COULD be a whole other story behind the letter Humbert is reading. But I prefer the script to reveal the plot. And there has to be some point to the letter being a fake. What's in it for Humbert to tell people there was a letter?
After I wrote this, I realized the plot of Murder, She Said either doesn't make a lot of sense or I don't remember the details of why the doctor has to make the police think one of the family murdered the girl. And I have watched that movie quite a few times, but it seems like a lousy plan.
>>I agree that the way he is holding the pages and the envelope, and the light shining on the pages, looks odd, and makes me look for some meaning in the pattern, but I am not a fan of "this never happened" explanations.
This letter scene seemed to address those that read the book and has a good idea that the letter is fake.
I've watched the movie 3 times before reading the book. While watching it I didn't think the letter was fake. But Humbert's laughter seemed evil to me because I know his intentions was to get closer to Dolores.
But since I've identified the burnt toast scene early in the movie, my gut feeling is that Charlotte and Dolores are not aware of Humberts plans and he inserts them in his daydreams.
I'm not 100% sure but I'm thinking all the scenes without band-aids are daydreams. (I'll explain this in another video)
I agree the "this never happened explanations" can be difficult to understand unless you read the book and remember that the book is being told by an Unreliable Narrator. I also want to say the movie was made during the Hays Code (Stanley Kubrick was not the only filmmaker doing stuff to slip by the Hays Code censors).
It's been years when I saw "Murder, she said" I have to get back into it one day.
>>What's in it for Humbert to tell people there was a letter?
To make him sound less of a monster. His plan was to murder Charlotte and kidnap and rape Dolores (I believe he also murdered her too). But he also wants to brag about his intentions.
We know that Humbert doesn't like Charlotte. In the book, the letter reads:
But if, after reading my "confession," you decided, in your dark romantic European way, that I am attractive enough for you to take advantage of my letter and make a pass at me, then you would be a criminal - worse than a kidnapper who rapes a child.
So according to Humbert that he's so evil he takes advantage of his Landlady, but his evil actions of kidnapping and raping Dolores is not that evil. (It's very twisted)
In the movie the letter don't get into that detail but if you read the book, you're very aware what's Humberts intentions are (we also have several scenes of Humbert eyeing on Dolores which tells us Humberts intentions)
They all do. Sometimes they are done this way on purpose because the writers of the story are afraid to inspire criminal actions and other times what seemed to make sense at the time becomes convoluted years later.
I'll have to watch Murder, She Said.
I do want to make a video on Manchurian Candidate from the 1960's (I've watched this movie 4 times and I have several questions), I also got a paperback printed before the release of the movie but I just don't feel like reading now.
@@tankardoftales4645 I read Lolita a couple of times, but probably in the seventies and eighties. Don't remember that much. I need to read it again. I thought Kubrick did not make Humbert creepy enough, and made Lolita too sophisticated, so the point was lost.
@@hermanhale9258 if you read the book again. Treat the Foreword as chapter 1a and chapter 1 as 1b.
Keep in mind that Humbert enjoys fooling the experts (and mostlikely the expert writing the Foreword is fooled).
Humbert is telling us the story. Charlotte and Dolores words is not their own words.
Humbert also hints getting away with murdering Charlotte.