What do you think?
Rate this book
Lolita: The Screenplay
As it charts the hypnotized progress of Humbert Humbert, a hypercivilized and amoral European emigre, into the orbit of a treacherously lovely and utterly unimpressionable preteen, Lolita: A Screenplay gleefully demolishes a host of stereotypes - sexual, moral, and aesthetic. Not least among the casualties is the notion that cinema and literature are two separate spheres. For in his screenplay, Nabokov married the structural and narrative felicities of great cinema to prose as sensuously entrancing as any he had ever written, resulting in a work that will delight cineasts and Nabokovians alike.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
38 people are currently reading
463 people want to read
About the author
Vladimir Nabokov
892 books15k followersVladimir Nabokov (Russian: Владимир Набоков) was a writer defined by a life of forced movement and extraordinary linguistic transformation. Born into a wealthy, liberal aristocratic family in St. Petersburg, Russia, he grew up trilingual, speaking Russian, English, and French in a household that nurtured his intellectual curiosities, including a lifelong passion for butterflies. This seemingly idyllic, privileged existence was abruptly shattered by the Bolshevik Revolution, which forced the family into permanent exile in 1919. This early, profound experience of displacement and the loss of a homeland became a central, enduring theme in his subsequent work, fueling his exploration of memory, nostalgia, and the irretrievable past.
The first phase of his literary life began in Europe, primarily in Berlin, where he established himself as a leading voice among the Russian émigré community under the pseudonym "Vladimir Sirin". During this prolific period, he penned nine novels in his native tongue, showcasing a precocious talent for intricate plotting and character study. Works like The Defense explored obsession through the extended metaphor of chess, while Invitation to a Beheading served as a potent, surreal critique of totalitarian absurdity. In 1925, he married Véra Slonim, an intellectual force in her own right, who would become his indispensable partner, editor, translator, and lifelong anchor.
The escalating shadow of Nazism necessitated another, urgent relocation in 1940, this time to the United States. It was here that Nabokov undertook an extraordinary linguistic metamorphosis, making the challenging yet resolute shift from Russian to English as his primary language of expression. He became a U.S. citizen in 1945, solidifying his new life in North America. To support his family, he took on academic positions, first founding the Russian department at Wellesley College, and later serving as a highly regarded professor of Russian and European literature at Cornell University from 1948 to 1959.
During this academic tenure, he also dedicated significant time to his other great passion: lepidoptery. He worked as an unpaid curator of butterflies at Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology. His scientific work was far from amateurish; he developed novel taxonomic methods and a groundbreaking, highly debated theory on the migration patterns and phylogeny of the Polyommatus blue butterflies, a hypothesis that modern DNA analysis confirmed decades later.
Nabokov achieved widespread international fame and financial independence with the publication of Lolita in 1955, a novel that was initially met with controversy and censorship battles due to its provocative subject matter concerning a middle-aged literature professor and his obsession with a twelve-year-old girl. The novel's critical and commercial success finally allowed him to leave teaching and academia behind. In 1959, he and Véra moved permanently to the quiet luxury of the Montreux Palace Hotel in Switzerland, where he focused solely on writing, translating his earlier Russian works into meticulous English, and studying local butterflies.
His later English novels, such as Pale Fire (1962), a complex, postmodern narrative structured around a 999-line poem and its delusional commentator, cemented his reputation as a master stylist and a technical genius. His literary style is characterized by intricate wordplay, a profound use of allusion, structural complexity, and an insistence on the artist's total, almost tyrannical, control over their created world. Nabokov often expressed disdain for what he termed "topical trash" and the simplistic interpretations of Freudian psychoanalysis, preferring instead to focus on the power of individual consciousness, the mechanics of memory, and the intricate, often deceptive, interplay between art and perceived "reality". His unique body of work, straddling multiple cultures and languages, continues to
The first phase of his literary life began in Europe, primarily in Berlin, where he established himself as a leading voice among the Russian émigré community under the pseudonym "Vladimir Sirin". During this prolific period, he penned nine novels in his native tongue, showcasing a precocious talent for intricate plotting and character study. Works like The Defense explored obsession through the extended metaphor of chess, while Invitation to a Beheading served as a potent, surreal critique of totalitarian absurdity. In 1925, he married Véra Slonim, an intellectual force in her own right, who would become his indispensable partner, editor, translator, and lifelong anchor.
The escalating shadow of Nazism necessitated another, urgent relocation in 1940, this time to the United States. It was here that Nabokov undertook an extraordinary linguistic metamorphosis, making the challenging yet resolute shift from Russian to English as his primary language of expression. He became a U.S. citizen in 1945, solidifying his new life in North America. To support his family, he took on academic positions, first founding the Russian department at Wellesley College, and later serving as a highly regarded professor of Russian and European literature at Cornell University from 1948 to 1959.
During this academic tenure, he also dedicated significant time to his other great passion: lepidoptery. He worked as an unpaid curator of butterflies at Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology. His scientific work was far from amateurish; he developed novel taxonomic methods and a groundbreaking, highly debated theory on the migration patterns and phylogeny of the Polyommatus blue butterflies, a hypothesis that modern DNA analysis confirmed decades later.
Nabokov achieved widespread international fame and financial independence with the publication of Lolita in 1955, a novel that was initially met with controversy and censorship battles due to its provocative subject matter concerning a middle-aged literature professor and his obsession with a twelve-year-old girl. The novel's critical and commercial success finally allowed him to leave teaching and academia behind. In 1959, he and Véra moved permanently to the quiet luxury of the Montreux Palace Hotel in Switzerland, where he focused solely on writing, translating his earlier Russian works into meticulous English, and studying local butterflies.
His later English novels, such as Pale Fire (1962), a complex, postmodern narrative structured around a 999-line poem and its delusional commentator, cemented his reputation as a master stylist and a technical genius. His literary style is characterized by intricate wordplay, a profound use of allusion, structural complexity, and an insistence on the artist's total, almost tyrannical, control over their created world. Nabokov often expressed disdain for what he termed "topical trash" and the simplistic interpretations of Freudian psychoanalysis, preferring instead to focus on the power of individual consciousness, the mechanics of memory, and the intricate, often deceptive, interplay between art and perceived "reality". His unique body of work, straddling multiple cultures and languages, continues to
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
August 4, 2023
This play in three acts is Nabokov’s version of Lolita’s screenplay and not the one used for producing the 1962 movie directed by Stanley Kubrick.
While the blood still throbs through my writing hand, you are still as much part of blest matter as I am. I can still talk to you and make you live in the minds of later generations. I’m thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.
While the blood still throbs through my writing hand, you are still as much part of blest matter as I am. I can still talk to you and make you live in the minds of later generations. I’m thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.
July 21, 2015
Why should one read VN’s screenplay of Lolita? First, because it’s an enjoyable 2-hour alternative to re-reading the novel — “purely as a vivacious variant of an old novel,” as VN puts it in his introduction.
Secondly, for the “deleted scenes” that Nabokov removed from the novel but reused for the screenplay such as a Humbert being given a grotesquely humorous guided tour of the ruins of the nonexistent McCoo home where Humbert was to have lived, but which has burned down before his arrival. Another is Humbert’s tutoring Lolita through his favorite poem by Poe.
Thirdly, for Nabokov’s delicious “Action” elements inserted between the dialogue, which are normally so staccato and boring in screenplays: “We are served the dish of the large, pine-fringed, scintillating Ramsdale Lake;” “Details of nocturnal storm, gesticulating black trees;” “She turns from sea-star supine to seal prone.” “The playwright Quilty, dead to the world, sprawls among emblems of drunkenness.”
I think the best reason, however, is to see how Nabokov envisioned the film, and how he dealt with the central problem of filming the book and others like it (e.g. Catcher in the Rye) — namely where the is a function of the book’s unique narration, which is unlikely to translate to film. Nabokov’s solution surprised me. He chose to use Humbert’s psychiatrist narration as voiceover with a pastiche of visual elements: quick cuts to Humbert as a child on the beach, snapshots coming to life, (Cut to: Picnic, lighting) and maps with arrows tracing the route, etc.. This technique also seems to successfully transfer the parodic elements of the book into the film (something that Kubrick did well but in other ways.) Nabokov’s version reminded me of an almost Wes Anderson-like treatment. (It occurred to me that he would have been much better to direct the remake than Adrian Lynn’s gauzy sentimental 1997 version.)
I’d been pondering on Nabokov/Anderson similarities/influences when, quite by coincidence, I read Michael Chabon’s introduction to The Wes Anderson Collection in which he specifically compares the worlds created by Anderson to the worlds created by Nabokov. Chabon summed it up quite nicely: “All movies [and books], of course, are equally artificial; it’s just that some are more honest about it than others.”
Secondly, for the “deleted scenes” that Nabokov removed from the novel but reused for the screenplay such as a Humbert being given a grotesquely humorous guided tour of the ruins of the nonexistent McCoo home where Humbert was to have lived, but which has burned down before his arrival. Another is Humbert’s tutoring Lolita through his favorite poem by Poe.
Thirdly, for Nabokov’s delicious “Action” elements inserted between the dialogue, which are normally so staccato and boring in screenplays: “We are served the dish of the large, pine-fringed, scintillating Ramsdale Lake;” “Details of nocturnal storm, gesticulating black trees;” “She turns from sea-star supine to seal prone.” “The playwright Quilty, dead to the world, sprawls among emblems of drunkenness.”
I think the best reason, however, is to see how Nabokov envisioned the film, and how he dealt with the central problem of filming the book and others like it (e.g. Catcher in the Rye) — namely where the is a function of the book’s unique narration, which is unlikely to translate to film. Nabokov’s solution surprised me. He chose to use Humbert’s psychiatrist narration as voiceover with a pastiche of visual elements: quick cuts to Humbert as a child on the beach, snapshots coming to life, (Cut to: Picnic, lighting) and maps with arrows tracing the route, etc.. This technique also seems to successfully transfer the parodic elements of the book into the film (something that Kubrick did well but in other ways.) Nabokov’s version reminded me of an almost Wes Anderson-like treatment. (It occurred to me that he would have been much better to direct the remake than Adrian Lynn’s gauzy sentimental 1997 version.)
I’d been pondering on Nabokov/Anderson similarities/influences when, quite by coincidence, I read Michael Chabon’s introduction to The Wes Anderson Collection in which he specifically compares the worlds created by Anderson to the worlds created by Nabokov. Chabon summed it up quite nicely: “All movies [and books], of course, are equally artificial; it’s just that some are more honest about it than others.”
September 20, 2025
Lolita - screenplay written by Vladimir Nabokov with contributors and directed by Stanley Kubrick
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... and http://realini.blogspot.ro/
Lolita is a masterpiece.
A chef d'oeuvre that has been included among the best novels ever written.
The combination of two geniuses, Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick promised a feast.
And the fireworks were delivered.
Stanley Kubrick is one of the best film directors of all time, the same way as Vladimir Nabokov is one of the most acclaimed authors.
Some of his films are on the lists of best cinema creations:
- Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Shining, Paths of Glory, Spartacus...albeit the latter had a complicated history, with another director involved at the start.
Vladimir Nabokov was an intriguing man, about whom I have read in one book and heard in the program called Bouillon de Culture, created and presented by the brilliant Bernard Pivot.
The book is written by Robert Evans, who was the head of Paramount, the producer of films like The Godfather and Chinatown and the one who discovered Jack Nicholson among others.
In The Kid Stays in the Picture, Robert Evans writes about his encounter with the great author, when he was trying to buy the rights for one of his books and adapt it for the big screen.
The story with Bouillon de Culture is strange.
Vladimir Nabokov was invited on the show but he said he would only come if he brings along his written answers to the questions that he would know in advance.
And he did just that on the show.
Returning to Lolita, on which I have a previous note, posted after reading the original for the second time, I noticed a few major changes.
Instead of the background of Humbert Humbert, Paris and the introduction of the printed material, on the screen we have Humbert painting Lolita's toenails on the first scene.
After this, the audience is invited to have an ironic, jocular look at the confrontation between Humbert and Quilty.
They are played by James Mason and the brilliant Peter Sellers, the latter involved in creating multiple roles in this movie.
Quilty is faced by an angry, betrayed lover in his own home, when he just had a party.
Humbert is giving him to read the sentence and accusations.
- Do you remember Dolores?
Quilty appears to have trouble recalling, but it is probably just and act.
He maintains a jocular manner when he starts playing table tennis with Humbert, who is obviously not interested in the game.
Readers of the book know that we have the end placed at the beginning and the film audience is to realize that within minutes.
Humbert is throwing the balls out of the table and then takes out a gun...
- Oh, so you are a bad loser, Quilty is trying again to joke
But very soon, his tormented enemy is saying
- You want to die standing or sitting?
And starts shooting, wounding the former rival.
No spoiler alert is needed, it all happens in the first ten minutes and I do not know -and this is probably the point -if there is a more serious wound, except for the one we see, injuring the leg of Quilty.
As for the rest, I recognized the themes from the book, even if given the medium, a lot of what is within the printed masterpiece had to go.
The film was nominated for important Academy and other awards and won recognition.
The tone of the movie is more ironic and jocular and the relationship between the adult and the teenager is more suggested than depicted.
At the time of filming, it seems that even with that precaution the film was rated Adults Only, or for over eighteen depending on various markets.
It is a powerful, meaningful narrative, that does not present the pedofile as a good man, indeed we see him for what he is :
A complex man, with intelligence, cultivated, smart and cunning, but still a kind of a monster, if sophisticated, pleasant and jovial at times.
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... and http://realini.blogspot.ro/
Lolita is a masterpiece.
A chef d'oeuvre that has been included among the best novels ever written.
The combination of two geniuses, Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick promised a feast.
And the fireworks were delivered.
Stanley Kubrick is one of the best film directors of all time, the same way as Vladimir Nabokov is one of the most acclaimed authors.
Some of his films are on the lists of best cinema creations:
- Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Shining, Paths of Glory, Spartacus...albeit the latter had a complicated history, with another director involved at the start.
Vladimir Nabokov was an intriguing man, about whom I have read in one book and heard in the program called Bouillon de Culture, created and presented by the brilliant Bernard Pivot.
The book is written by Robert Evans, who was the head of Paramount, the producer of films like The Godfather and Chinatown and the one who discovered Jack Nicholson among others.
In The Kid Stays in the Picture, Robert Evans writes about his encounter with the great author, when he was trying to buy the rights for one of his books and adapt it for the big screen.
The story with Bouillon de Culture is strange.
Vladimir Nabokov was invited on the show but he said he would only come if he brings along his written answers to the questions that he would know in advance.
And he did just that on the show.
Returning to Lolita, on which I have a previous note, posted after reading the original for the second time, I noticed a few major changes.
Instead of the background of Humbert Humbert, Paris and the introduction of the printed material, on the screen we have Humbert painting Lolita's toenails on the first scene.
After this, the audience is invited to have an ironic, jocular look at the confrontation between Humbert and Quilty.
They are played by James Mason and the brilliant Peter Sellers, the latter involved in creating multiple roles in this movie.
Quilty is faced by an angry, betrayed lover in his own home, when he just had a party.
Humbert is giving him to read the sentence and accusations.
- Do you remember Dolores?
Quilty appears to have trouble recalling, but it is probably just and act.
He maintains a jocular manner when he starts playing table tennis with Humbert, who is obviously not interested in the game.
Readers of the book know that we have the end placed at the beginning and the film audience is to realize that within minutes.
Humbert is throwing the balls out of the table and then takes out a gun...
- Oh, so you are a bad loser, Quilty is trying again to joke
But very soon, his tormented enemy is saying
- You want to die standing or sitting?
And starts shooting, wounding the former rival.
No spoiler alert is needed, it all happens in the first ten minutes and I do not know -and this is probably the point -if there is a more serious wound, except for the one we see, injuring the leg of Quilty.
As for the rest, I recognized the themes from the book, even if given the medium, a lot of what is within the printed masterpiece had to go.
The film was nominated for important Academy and other awards and won recognition.
The tone of the movie is more ironic and jocular and the relationship between the adult and the teenager is more suggested than depicted.
At the time of filming, it seems that even with that precaution the film was rated Adults Only, or for over eighteen depending on various markets.
It is a powerful, meaningful narrative, that does not present the pedofile as a good man, indeed we see him for what he is :
A complex man, with intelligence, cultivated, smart and cunning, but still a kind of a monster, if sophisticated, pleasant and jovial at times.
August 12, 2022
It's fascinating to read Nabokov's script from his novel "Lolita." The truth is, the Kubrick script is much better. The Nabokov version has the foundation (of course), but the detailed work in the Kubrick version is really something. A real education to read this script from a master novelist and then being an aware of the Kubrick touch that made the film brilliant.
May 25, 2014
Lolita is in my top five novels I’ve ever read. And I am a huge fan of Kubrick and his filmed version. So I don’t know why it took me so long to read Nabokov’s version of the screenplay, which differs greatly from Kubrick’s. It’s brilliant, of course. And, in an introduction, Nabokov says some pithy things about the 3 versions: original novel, Kubrick’s film and this screenplay. It’s interesting to read because, as he admits in the introduction, Nabokov did not know how to write a movie and this version is probably unfilmable. Still it’s vintage VN and full of wonder and deep delight.
March 27, 2014
Up until the final scene, I was actually more engaged with this screenplay than I had been with the novel. This was for the same reason that the novelic screenplay is normally criticized: so much is left out. While the novel is sunk deep in the folds of Humbert Humbert's mind, the screenplay has to stop short. The film requires detachment. And in the white space left by this detachment, you begin to see, for the first time, the ostensible subject of the book and the movie: Lolita. Dolly. She has the real psychological drama: a kid wrestling for her own sexual identity in an impossible culture -- a culture with extremely strict purity-rules for girls coupled with economic and social conditions that place them so fully in the control of rapists like Humbert Humbert. Her cynicism and resentment and eventual escape are profoundly moral gestures -- and they look awfully like the kind of nasty teenage rebellion we try to drum out of little girls in favor of feminine pliability.
But once I caught a whiff of this, I only became frustrated that Nabokov continually neglected this story line, this psychology, in favor of whatever little soul-quibbles his pedophile might be burping up. And finally, once Humby couldn't damage Dolly anymore, old Vlad just did away with her. Keep her young and nymphic for life -- her final tragedy to have her flattened self immortalized in the prose of her adoring misogynist rapist.
But once I caught a whiff of this, I only became frustrated that Nabokov continually neglected this story line, this psychology, in favor of whatever little soul-quibbles his pedophile might be burping up. And finally, once Humby couldn't damage Dolly anymore, old Vlad just did away with her. Keep her young and nymphic for life -- her final tragedy to have her flattened self immortalized in the prose of her adoring misogynist rapist.
August 5, 2017
In his foreword, Nab0kov states he might publish his modified screenplay "...not in pettish refutation of a munificent film, but purely as a vivacious variant of an old novel."* Since much of the novel itself takes place in Humbert's brain, the book itself is almost unfilmable. Which raises the big question: why try a film anyway? The answer is rather obvious: Nabokov+Kubrick+controversy=Big Box Office in (theory). But I digress: Nabokov does provide to us a slightly new variant of his classic novel, and that in and of itself makes this a must read for Nabokov fans, and the same goes for Kubrick fans. And personally, I'd like to see a film version of this Nabokov/Kubrick collision, as it must have been just that. Then, we would be subjected to the following films: "Lolita 2", "Nabokov/Kubrick: The Aftermath" and finally a three hour "Lolita/Nabokov/Kubrick" with Lolita's mother as her Hollywood lawyer/publicist. All with Hitchcock directing in glorious black and white. But why, oh why, was Hitchcock not chosen to direct the 1959 version of "Lolita" anyway?
*Oh, Nabokov, do words like these just naturally roll out of your brain and onto paper, much like Mozart's music notes? Imagine, lunch with those two plus Agatha Christie, adding simple sound bites for the benefit of the rest of us.
*Oh, Nabokov, do words like these just naturally roll out of your brain and onto paper, much like Mozart's music notes? Imagine, lunch with those two plus Agatha Christie, adding simple sound bites for the benefit of the rest of us.
December 2, 2013
Novel, but not as novel as the novel. (How d'you like that wordplay, Mr. Nabokov?!)
I get the sense that Nabokov adapted the book to see if he could, whereas Kubrick adapted the book because he had a vision of how it would look on-screen.
I get the sense that Nabokov adapted the book to see if he could, whereas Kubrick adapted the book because he had a vision of how it would look on-screen.
April 28, 2017
Absolutely AMAZING. A must read.
February 20, 2019
Obviously didn’t slap as hard as the novel but yeah still slaps
April 16, 2025
3.5/5
Reading this, you can tell that Nabokov is not a screenwriter. I read this because I had read somewhere that when Kubrick went to make Lolita the film, Nabokov handed him a 400 page script (7 hours of screen time). Of course, that had to be cut down and most of it did not make it into Kubrick’s final film which Nabokov mentions in the intro. Reading this, I can see why. For one, this barely reads as a screenplay. It is split into a prologue and 3 acts. The prologue takes up 20 pages (at least in the edition I read). Mind you, a page of screenplay is generally a minute of screen time. That means that 20 minutes of the film (in Nabokov’s original screenplay) is set up of Humbert Humbert’s life before even meeting Lolita. Nabokov also doesn’t write with scene headings, just “cut tos.” The structures of the acts also don’t really follow the structures you are taught to write screenplays with. And this is not to say that every screenplay needs to follow a structure, but this one starts to become less engaging because of it. Act 2 on the page, and I’m sure if it was put to screen, becomes a slog. There are not a lot of big plot points that increase the drama, conflict, etc.
I saw reviews of Kubrick’s film saying that he or someone should have made Nabokov’s original script. While that would be interesting to see, it would probably not be good. Adapting a book to film is not as easy as it sounds. It isn’t just about copying and pasting one medium to the other, it’s about capturing its essence. Nabokov tries to capture the essence of his original book solely through trying to keep as many scenes from the novel as possible. It is hard at times to even see his vision as he puts in stage directions(?)/action lines that would completely throw viewers out of the film. For example, the prologue has a lot of moments where suddenly a doctor’s voice cuts into the scene to provide narration but Nabokov does not explicitly say how he would like this to be done (a freeze frame?). There is also a moment in act 3 (I believe) where one of Humbert Humbert’s thoughts is voiced out loud. Imagine being a viewer and throughout 3 hours of the movie not a single thought from the main character is put into voice over and then suddenly during hour 4, it is. It’s going to pull you out of the experience because it’s so strange.
Don’t get me wrong, Nabokov is one of the greatest writers. Even his action lines turn into poetry, although flowery language generally isn’t used in screenwriting (and his action lines turn into paragraphs upon paragraphs). But obviously screenwriting was not his forte. I am still glad that this piece of history in the world of Lolita and its adaptations exists in print to be dissected. It gives a glimpse into how the process of adapting books to film is done (successfully or not) and displays how Nabokov saw the film version of his novel.
Reading this, you can tell that Nabokov is not a screenwriter. I read this because I had read somewhere that when Kubrick went to make Lolita the film, Nabokov handed him a 400 page script (7 hours of screen time). Of course, that had to be cut down and most of it did not make it into Kubrick’s final film which Nabokov mentions in the intro. Reading this, I can see why. For one, this barely reads as a screenplay. It is split into a prologue and 3 acts. The prologue takes up 20 pages (at least in the edition I read). Mind you, a page of screenplay is generally a minute of screen time. That means that 20 minutes of the film (in Nabokov’s original screenplay) is set up of Humbert Humbert’s life before even meeting Lolita. Nabokov also doesn’t write with scene headings, just “cut tos.” The structures of the acts also don’t really follow the structures you are taught to write screenplays with. And this is not to say that every screenplay needs to follow a structure, but this one starts to become less engaging because of it. Act 2 on the page, and I’m sure if it was put to screen, becomes a slog. There are not a lot of big plot points that increase the drama, conflict, etc.
I saw reviews of Kubrick’s film saying that he or someone should have made Nabokov’s original script. While that would be interesting to see, it would probably not be good. Adapting a book to film is not as easy as it sounds. It isn’t just about copying and pasting one medium to the other, it’s about capturing its essence. Nabokov tries to capture the essence of his original book solely through trying to keep as many scenes from the novel as possible. It is hard at times to even see his vision as he puts in stage directions(?)/action lines that would completely throw viewers out of the film. For example, the prologue has a lot of moments where suddenly a doctor’s voice cuts into the scene to provide narration but Nabokov does not explicitly say how he would like this to be done (a freeze frame?). There is also a moment in act 3 (I believe) where one of Humbert Humbert’s thoughts is voiced out loud. Imagine being a viewer and throughout 3 hours of the movie not a single thought from the main character is put into voice over and then suddenly during hour 4, it is. It’s going to pull you out of the experience because it’s so strange.
Don’t get me wrong, Nabokov is one of the greatest writers. Even his action lines turn into poetry, although flowery language generally isn’t used in screenwriting (and his action lines turn into paragraphs upon paragraphs). But obviously screenwriting was not his forte. I am still glad that this piece of history in the world of Lolita and its adaptations exists in print to be dissected. It gives a glimpse into how the process of adapting books to film is done (successfully or not) and displays how Nabokov saw the film version of his novel.
October 24, 2017
has some fun lines. was afraid it would challenge my interpretation of the novel. hardly scathed. nabokov himself couldn't tell me otherwise.
September 18, 2024
3.5 stars
this man was clearly an novelist and not a screenwriter.... but still powerful in its own right, just think it probably pales in comparison, and in my opinion, can't 100% stand on its own....
this man was clearly an novelist and not a screenwriter.... but still powerful in its own right, just think it probably pales in comparison, and in my opinion, can't 100% stand on its own....
August 23, 2016
As it's Nabokov and it's his Lolita, there are inevitably a lot of great things about this screenplay, especially compared to Kubrick's Lolita, which is enjoyable but a different creature altogether. Nabokov is himself throughout the entire screenplay and is often quite witty in the stage directions -- for instance, a narrator for a commercial about peaches is "A FRUITY VOICE". Or Nabokov takes the time to be humorous: the collie that was supposed to be hit by the van, the van that instead struck Charlotte, is happily going from group to group of the people gathered around her dead body. etc.
Furthermore, here Charlotte was allotted her due grace; instead of being the petty, shrewish mother of the movie, here she actually seems to like her daughter quite a lot, something that's a lot more tenable for me.
On its own, it's orders of magnitude less impressive than the novel. It's best as a supplement, so it can gain from the novel's brilliance without suffering by a comparison with the novel: it clarifies quite a few things that I somehow managed to miss in the novel, like the fact that Mona is Vivian Darkbloom's niece, and thus her friendship with Dolly is also Dolly's link to Quilty.
Probably its greatest virtue is the insight it gives to the relationship between Humbert and Dolly; it's more removed from Humbert, which means that you can actually see how he is externally. And it was astonishing, to read Humbert declaring to her things like, "I love you, I adore you," or, "You know I'll die if you leave me." That removal from Humbert meant not only that the screenplay revealed a bit of the more veiled hijinks of the novel (Quilty pursuing Humbert, for example; I'd been under the impression that the shifting cars tailing Humbert were actually a figment of his paranoia, something the screenplay disabused me of) and, also, there was a greater dollop of Dolly than in the novel.
(One quibble: on the announcement of her death, Dolly is called by her maiden name and not Mrs. Richard F. Schiller. That was a detail that I would have preferred preserved.)
Furthermore, here Charlotte was allotted her due grace; instead of being the petty, shrewish mother of the movie, here she actually seems to like her daughter quite a lot, something that's a lot more tenable for me.
On its own, it's orders of magnitude less impressive than the novel. It's best as a supplement, so it can gain from the novel's brilliance without suffering by a comparison with the novel: it clarifies quite a few things that I somehow managed to miss in the novel, like the fact that Mona is Vivian Darkbloom's niece, and thus her friendship with Dolly is also Dolly's link to Quilty.
Probably its greatest virtue is the insight it gives to the relationship between Humbert and Dolly; it's more removed from Humbert, which means that you can actually see how he is externally. And it was astonishing, to read Humbert declaring to her things like, "I love you, I adore you," or, "You know I'll die if you leave me." That removal from Humbert meant not only that the screenplay revealed a bit of the more veiled hijinks of the novel (Quilty pursuing Humbert, for example; I'd been under the impression that the shifting cars tailing Humbert were actually a figment of his paranoia, something the screenplay disabused me of) and, also, there was a greater dollop of Dolly than in the novel.
(One quibble: on the announcement of her death, Dolly is called by her maiden name and not Mrs. Richard F. Schiller. That was a detail that I would have preferred preserved.)
August 16, 2011
The screenplay of Lolita is in a similar structure to the Kubrick film in that it begins with the end, and then traces down the major stomping grounds of the novel, Ramsdale, the road, Beardsley, the road, Lolita's home, and for the screenplay it pretty much ends there whereas the Kubrick film replays the intro with a little more added.
The differences between the Kubrick film and the Nabokov screenplay are rather different outside of the major plot points that must be touched upon and Nabokov's screenplay is similar to his novel but still very different in the context of the beautiful prose, internal dialogue, and literary references made within the novel that just can not be captured by a movie.
I recommend the screenplay if you are a big fan of Lolita as a piece of work and if you do see the Kubrick film I think reading this version of the screenplay (the original version was 400 pages) is a fun comparison to make.
Overall I say the novel is heads and tails above everything else but the 1997 movie is excellent, then I would say the Kubrick film and screenplay are amusing echos of something great. I would probably say the Nabokov screenplay is slightly better than the Kubrick film.
The differences between the Kubrick film and the Nabokov screenplay are rather different outside of the major plot points that must be touched upon and Nabokov's screenplay is similar to his novel but still very different in the context of the beautiful prose, internal dialogue, and literary references made within the novel that just can not be captured by a movie.
I recommend the screenplay if you are a big fan of Lolita as a piece of work and if you do see the Kubrick film I think reading this version of the screenplay (the original version was 400 pages) is a fun comparison to make.
Overall I say the novel is heads and tails above everything else but the 1997 movie is excellent, then I would say the Kubrick film and screenplay are amusing echos of something great. I would probably say the Nabokov screenplay is slightly better than the Kubrick film.
April 12, 2015
Given that this was his only screenplay, it's pretty incredible just how well-done this is. Granted, N had written several plays and was a cinephile, so he had a lot of the necessary skill set. But even with that in mind, I was amazed by just how well he spoke the language of the cinema and perfectly understood what needed to go into a good screenplay. The prologue is dazzling in how well it conveys information and exposition without being obvious about it. The whole thing is so artistically and cleverly done that it'll make you sad that Kubrick used almost none of it in the actual film. There are also lots of little asides and stage directions that are charming and funny and it's so characteristic of N to put them in there despite knowing that the audience would never get to read them.
There are also some charms of the novel that are lost here (particularly the prose and the more generous page count), but that was kind of inevitable. And because most of the material here is also in the novel (though there are a few things unique to the screenplay), it's isn't quite required reading for N fans, but the fanatics like myself definitely need this.
There are also some charms of the novel that are lost here (particularly the prose and the more generous page count), but that was kind of inevitable. And because most of the material here is also in the novel (though there are a few things unique to the screenplay), it's isn't quite required reading for N fans, but the fanatics like myself definitely need this.
June 20, 2014
Not nearly as captivating as the virtuosic novel, but a fine work in itself. Lolita doesn't translate well as a screenplay because now all the events as shown from a camera-like omniscient view, instead of the fuzzy, multi-layered vision we get from Humbert Humbert. There were some elements of this screenplay I didn't like all that much, particularly the awkward narration of John Ray Jr. However, certain new phrases of classic Nabokovian genius are born here such as
"...solarizing your solar plexus" --> Humbert commenting on Lolita sunbathing
"...numberless Humbertless" --> Humbert lamenting that Lolita is spending too much time with her friends
It's a shame Kubrick didn't use more of the original screenplay (and keep some of these brilliant phrases).
"...solarizing your solar plexus" --> Humbert commenting on Lolita sunbathing
"...numberless Humbertless" --> Humbert lamenting that Lolita is spending too much time with her friends
It's a shame Kubrick didn't use more of the original screenplay (and keep some of these brilliant phrases).
January 11, 2012
Read the novel first (preferably in the annotated edition). Then read Nabokov's fascinating screen adaptation of his celebrated novel. It's different, but the choices Nabokov makes are fascinating. They suggest that he didn't see his own novel as a sacred text, but rather something that could be adapted and changed for a different medium.
Plus, there's a wonderful metatextual moment, where Lo and Humbert Humbert meet a certain professorly character.
Well worth your time.
Plus, there's a wonderful metatextual moment, where Lo and Humbert Humbert meet a certain professorly character.
Well worth your time.
February 1, 2023
I have not read Lolita the novel yet so essentially this was my first time reading the story. I felt like the story was just too over the top.. another complaint that I have is that I really don’t like Lolita. She is a victim of sexual abuse, however it seems like she uses it to her advantage, and she remains a brat from the moment that we are introduced to her all the way to the end of the story. The way that Lolita is in response to what she’s been through just doesn’t seem realistic to me.
Read
January 2, 2017more readable than the novel itself, though less delicate
October 28, 2023
Guys I wrote such a long review but then goodreads crashed :(
To summarize:
Nabokov is sadly not a good screenwriter. Here’s why.
First, too many extraneous scenes. Nabokov even add himself as a cameo, because why not? The structure and pacing is just all over the place. It does not work in the slightest. Not to mention the way the beginning is the end just throws off the whole story and detective aspect of the novel.
Second, Nabokov doesn’t write descriptions that well. He will state broad things - “the house had a bourgeoise look to it” - but doesn’t really state what that means, or what that looks like.
Third, Nabokov destroys a lot of his allusionary style. Lolita is known for its web of allusions that goes as deep as you’re willing to go. Instead, here Nabokov states exactly what he’s referring to directly after doing so. It’s a form of pandering to a wider audience by disregarding the labyrinth of allusions that he’s created in the original.
Fourth, he butchers some of his original style. “This is my daughter, and these are my lilies.” Instead of “This is my Lo, and these are my lilies.”
Last, perspective is ruined. We receive scenes from a nonexistent perspective, even when we know it’s supposed to be from Humbert point of view. It contradicts itself multiple times.
Overall, wish I could write more but goodreads deleted all of it so this is what I have. Nabokov can’t write screenplays I guess.
Wouldn’t recommend unless you’re heavily interested in the film or the original book, becomes interesting at that point. 3/5
To summarize:
Nabokov is sadly not a good screenwriter. Here’s why.
First, too many extraneous scenes. Nabokov even add himself as a cameo, because why not? The structure and pacing is just all over the place. It does not work in the slightest. Not to mention the way the beginning is the end just throws off the whole story and detective aspect of the novel.
Second, Nabokov doesn’t write descriptions that well. He will state broad things - “the house had a bourgeoise look to it” - but doesn’t really state what that means, or what that looks like.
Third, Nabokov destroys a lot of his allusionary style. Lolita is known for its web of allusions that goes as deep as you’re willing to go. Instead, here Nabokov states exactly what he’s referring to directly after doing so. It’s a form of pandering to a wider audience by disregarding the labyrinth of allusions that he’s created in the original.
Fourth, he butchers some of his original style. “This is my daughter, and these are my lilies.” Instead of “This is my Lo, and these are my lilies.”
Last, perspective is ruined. We receive scenes from a nonexistent perspective, even when we know it’s supposed to be from Humbert point of view. It contradicts itself multiple times.
Overall, wish I could write more but goodreads deleted all of it so this is what I have. Nabokov can’t write screenplays I guess.
Wouldn’t recommend unless you’re heavily interested in the film or the original book, becomes interesting at that point. 3/5
August 12, 2025
Nabokov at the height of his powers tries his hand at writing a screenplay. It works as a fantasy, if not as a film.
The thing that stood out to me the most about this screenplay is the objectivity that Nabokov needed to don by taking on the perspective of the camera. The novel is stuck inside Humbert’s 1st person point of view. The screenplay needs to show you what Humbert can’t see. And what he can’t see is Lolita.
However, all this objectivity tears away the convenient gloss that many people have on Lolita the character. She is a schemer, a manipulator, and once corrupted becomes a perpetrator and perpetuator of her own corruption. She has a tragic arc, but she is not a victim only.
I think this reveals something that many people don’t like about Nabokov, namely, that he is not concerned with punishing evil doers or sparing victims. Every character in the screenplay as in the novel is pathetic and tragic. Humbert himself is cured or redeemed, arguably more clearly in the screenplay than in the novel. That’s not a message that contemporary, I would go so far as to say “popular” readers want to hear.
Reading the screenplay definitely clarified some of Nabokov’s goals with the novel. The theme of the double (in Quilty) is clear as day because of the camera.
Also clear are the themes of the play or theater, and the repeated image of three girls, one with an overlooked injury. As a tutorial to the novel, the screenplay is already valuable.
But what I’m most glad for is that we get more of Nabokov in a moment of supreme confidence in his writing. I didn’t know there was another major work between 1956 and 1962 for VN. This is it, and it’s worth it.
The thing that stood out to me the most about this screenplay is the objectivity that Nabokov needed to don by taking on the perspective of the camera. The novel is stuck inside Humbert’s 1st person point of view. The screenplay needs to show you what Humbert can’t see. And what he can’t see is Lolita.
However, all this objectivity tears away the convenient gloss that many people have on Lolita the character. She is a schemer, a manipulator, and once corrupted becomes a perpetrator and perpetuator of her own corruption. She has a tragic arc, but she is not a victim only.
I think this reveals something that many people don’t like about Nabokov, namely, that he is not concerned with punishing evil doers or sparing victims. Every character in the screenplay as in the novel is pathetic and tragic. Humbert himself is cured or redeemed, arguably more clearly in the screenplay than in the novel. That’s not a message that contemporary, I would go so far as to say “popular” readers want to hear.
Reading the screenplay definitely clarified some of Nabokov’s goals with the novel. The theme of the double (in Quilty) is clear as day because of the camera.
Also clear are the themes of the play or theater, and the repeated image of three girls, one with an overlooked injury. As a tutorial to the novel, the screenplay is already valuable.
But what I’m most glad for is that we get more of Nabokov in a moment of supreme confidence in his writing. I didn’t know there was another major work between 1956 and 1962 for VN. This is it, and it’s worth it.
November 20, 2023
Although way better than the Kubrick screenplay, it's still a little problematic in the portrayal of characters like Charlotte (the leaving out of the fact that Charlotte lost her son which in the book is briefly touched on because of Humbert's not-caring of that detail/unreliable narrator stuff, but in the screenplay could have been probably been mentioned at least once) and Delores (facts like she is called Lolita by other characters in the screenplay whereas in the book only Humbert calls her Lolita which "lessens" that theme of confiscation of identity so prominent in the novel). The way Nabakov writes is pretty funny, the screenplay doesn't read like a screenplay more of him trying to write a pseudo play sort of deal---midway between movie and novel. If you're a fan of the original novel, I think its a worthwhile read if you can get your hands on a copy, its nice and short so it's not a big time commitment.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 30, 2019
The screenplay stays pretty accurate to the story however I watched the 1962 movie along with reading the screenplay and the movie emitted so much and Kubrick didn't do this screenplay justice at all.
July 14, 2022
This would be a very disjointed movie overall, but there's something here and I love it as a new form of my favorite book. I don't like that he has people other than Humbert refer to Dolores as Lolita, but overall I really like this!
November 2, 2023
2,5 i didn’t like it. this was the only version i read and it was kinda hard to get through and i was uncomfortable reading it most of the time :// also, the ending was surprising! it wasn’t THATTTT bad maybe just not my cup of tea :)
January 27, 2020
Crazy, but good story that kept my interest from start to finish.
January 19, 2022
Reading this made me more convinced than ever that Lolita is the best book ever written
September 8, 2021
(disclaimer: have not read the book, just the screenplay) The last line of the screenplay hits, hh realised how he robbed Dolores’ childhood and that she never got to enjoy being the innocent child she deserved to be amongst the other children. Now I kinda wanna read the book to see how the ending is written
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 17, 2021
3.5 Stars
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews