This is your brain on KIno

Very excited and honored to be able to present Ken Russell's Psychotropic classic Altered States as part of this years Mayhem Horror Festival.
We have been massive fans of Mayhem for years and it means so much to us to be able to join the party.
Can't wait.

http://mayhemhorrorfest.co.uk/

Lolita and The Beyond

Sorry for the long pauses between blog posts, we are working hard at Kino on our screenings and don't get much chance to write. If you haven't seen it yet please go and see Berberian Sound Studio its fantastic. Lots in the pipe line for us including Carpenter's They Live and a halloween screening of Fulci's The Beyond.

Lolita was great and we thought we would share the essay with you if you didn't make the screening.
This months programmes were road maps.

How did they make a film of Lolita?

Lolita was an important film for Kubrick, it helped to shape him as a director, it was a move towards the satire that is prevalent in his work that followed Lolita, It helped to sew the seeds for his next film Dr Strangelove, it helped him to set up in England and it shaped Kubrick’s philosophy regarding studios and censorship.

Lolita is part of a set of lost works, the Kubrick films you should have seen because they are classics but somehow you have never got around to it, Barry Lyndon, The Killing, and Paths Of Glory – the films that aren’t Clockwork Orange, the Shining and 2001.

“How did they make a film of Lolita” was the films clever tag line, a witty repost towards the difficulty in getting the film made and past the censors but it could now be “Why haven’t you seen Lolita?” Why isn’t Lolita screened more often or shown on TV? Why isn’t Lolita embraced in our hearts as much as say Dr Stangelove?

Obviously this is a presumption, I’m sure many of you have seen Lolita.

But I’m sure you had to search for it, Lolita isn’t a film that comes and finds you.  Kubrick is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest directors of all time so why are some of his works neglected?  Does the film still contain some power to shock as it did in 1962? Is the subject still a taboo?

Kubrick knew that he couldn’t just simply film Vladimir Nabokov’s book

as Lolita would not get past the censors. The decision was made to raise Lolita’s age from 12 to 14 (in some US states this was legal marriage age) Stanley also wanted to move away from the books feeling of sexual depravity and move the film more towards unconventional love and satire.

Nabokov was approached to provide the script and eventually handed in a massive 400-page script, which would have been difficult to film. Nabokov, who had it written into his contract that he would receive the sole screen credit, would later receive an Oscar nomination despite the fact that the script was really a joint effort between Kubrick and producer James B Harris.

Kubrick and Harris felt they needed to portray Humbert Humbert in a more sympathetic light and less of a snarling predator. His first choice for the role of Humbert was James Mason; Kubrick felt he would bring some dignity to the role. Mason was very keen to play Humbert but had signed on to do a Broadway musical despite not being able to sing “its never stopped Rex Harrison” he was heard to say. He did offer his daughter Portland up as a possible Lolita though. Kubrick next approached Laurence Olivier who turned the part down, next it was David Niven who accepted then quickly declined even Marlon Brando and Peter Ustinov were considered. Luckily Mason decided to drop out his show despite a lot of singing lessons and signed on to play Humbert.  Lolita was more of a challenge to cast; Nabokov felt the part should be given to a dwarfess! Luckily Kubrick decided to ignore Nabokov’s suggestion and newcomer Sue Lyon was cast.  Peter Sellers was offered the role of Clare Quilty invitingly as a 5 minute cameo that kept growing, Kubrick gave Sellers the freedom to improvise in all of his scenes constantly ad libbing until he reached a ‘comedic ecstasy’.  Sellers also got to play more than one character as Quilty appears in different disguises one of which a Dr Kempf, who bears a striking resemblance to Dr Strangelove. It was also during the Lolita shoot that Kubrick would first read Terry Southern's book ‘The Magic Christian’ (later filmed with Sellers in the main role) Southern would go onto write the script for Kubrick’s next film Dr Strangelove. 

Sellers played a vital role in lightening a heavy film by steering Lolita towards black comedy. Kubrick shot Sellers with 2 to 3 cameras to capture his spontaneity, this was a wise move as by the 3rd take Sellers would be spent; Kubrick often used the 1st take.

Shelley Winters joined next with the role of Charlotte Haze, she only agreed if it was written into her contract that she could be guaranteed to be allowed time to go to JFK’s inauguration ball for whom she had campaigned heavily. This never happened due to poor weather over the Atlantic but she was later the maid of honour at the private press ball for Kennedy.

Lolita was shot in the UK to take advantage of the Eady Plan and this was purely a business decision but Kubrick enjoyed the freedom of being away from the studio system and was also quite an Anglophile so decided to stay and make the UK his home.

The hardest part was always going to be getting the film past the MPPA, BBFC and the Catholic Legion of Decency uncut. This meant holding back on the sexuality and depravity, Kubrick said “because of all the pressure over the Production Code and the Catholic church at the time, I believe I didn't sufficiently dramatize the erotic aspect of Humbert's relationship with Lolita. If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component of their relationship with the same weight Nabokov did”. Kubrick kept close contact with the MPPA and John Trevelyan head of the BBFC and the film was released uncut, though the Legion Of Decency deemed any Catholic going see Lolita would be committing a mortal sin and Cannon John Collins went even further saying that he believed the film would lead to rape or even murder.

Lolita began filming in October 1960 with a budget of $1.75 million, and it generally followed the structure of Nabokov’s 400-page script, the film wrapped in March 1961.

Nabokov praised Lolita upon its release even going so far as to say that he felt some scenes in the film were an actual improvement upon his book but by the time (1973) he published his original screenplay he claimed that actually the film had left him a mixture of aggravation, regret and reluctant pleasure.

Though the finished result may not have been as sexual as both Kubrick and Nabokov has first imaged the film to be, it does stand out as a great black comedy. Many feel that Adrian Lyne’s 1997 version staring Jeremy Irons is a more faithful adaptation but is it as enjoyable to watch?  There have been many films that have dealt with the heavy themes of Lolita since its original release, the idea of an older man in love with a young girl is a recurring theme in Woody Allen’s work particularly in ‘Manhattan’ (1979) and the subject of paedophilia has been looked at in works such as David Slade’s brutal ‘Hard Candy’ (2005).

Kubrick’s Lolita deserves praise and it deserves attention, it’s a very dark and very funny film full of great performances. We hope you enjoy the film and that Lolita finds a place in your heart. 

They Live

They Live poster by Richard May.
Flickr

Who are they? And what do they want?

This world may have blinded me, but the Lord has let me see.

While We Sleep....

Coming Soon......

If...

Last night we screened Lindsay Anderson's classic If...
Our good friend Christy Fowlston wrote a piece for our program and heres what he had to say...

No film can be too personal.

The image speaks. Sound amplifies and comments.

Size is irrelevant. Perfection is not an aim.

An attitude means a style. A style means an attitude.

Or so said the first manifesto of the Free Cinema movement. Several years before the Royal Court’s ‘angry young men’ reshaped British drama forever, Lindsay Anderson was already busy challenging the cultural and social order, cutting his cinematic teeth with shoestring documentaries funded by the BFI. Struggling to get his films shown, Anderson joined forces with friends Karel Reisz, Tony Richardson and Lorenza Mazzetti, the four of them deciding to show their short documentary films in a single programme at the National Film Theatre. Despite the fact that the group had made their films independently of one another, Anderson identified a shared, novel attitude to their filmmaking, and opportunistically concocted a ‘Free Cinema Manifesto’ for the occasion. Such was the press attention garnered by Anderson’s manifesto that not only did all the screenings sell out, but a further five Free Cinema programmes took place over the next three years (with notable contributions from Roman Polanski and François Truffaut). With its evident contempt for mainstream British films, institutions and attitudes, and its respectful portrayal of ordinary people, Free Cinema, With Anderson as its spokesman, was the artistic melting pot from which the British New Wave was born.

What do you have?

Picking up where Free Cinema left off in 1959, The British New wave (BNW) consisted of perhaps no more than 9 major works, more than half of which were directed by the founders of Free Cinema (including Tony Richardson’s Look Back in Anger, A Taste of Honey, and The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, and Karel Reisz’s Saturday Night Sunday Morning). The late 50s saw the emergence of a youth culture eager to reject the fustiness and hidebound attitudes of their parents and the prevalent culture. BNW films told the stories of characters and issues on the social margins of society that would previously have been left untold. Anderson’s own contribution, This Sporting Life (1963), was his first feature length film and arguably the final film in the BNW movement. In common with most of the BNW’s films, This Sporting Life was based on a novel with a screenplay adapted by the author, David Storey (from his novel of the same name). It tells the story of Richard Harris’ inimical, violent coal miner, manipulated on the rugby field and manipulator off it. It wouldn’t be until 1968 that Anderson made another full length film. But This Sporting Life’s themes of power and class would be central to his next, and greatest, film.

There's no such thing as a wrong war. Violence and revolution are the only pure acts.

Set in an elite and elitist public school, Anderson’s 1968 film, If… is certainly a departure from the BNW’s focus on working or lower middle class people. Malcolm McDowell takes the lead (in his first screen appearance) as the sixth form rebel Mick Travis. Arriving back at school at the beginning of term with a non-regulation moustache, a fellow pupil remarks "God, it's Guy Fawkes back again". It’s a line that anticipates the unexpected finale of a film that was made while the students were literally manning the barricades in protests in France.

If… is a searing allegory of British society where public school serves as a microcosm. The contempt for British mores and institutions of Anderson’s earlier work is present, and so too are some more esoteric cinematic elements that Anderson had temporarily abandoned in This Sporting Life. Colour scenes are interspersed with monochrome, the day-to-day drudgery of school life is broken up with fantasy and surrealism. The repeated use of a Congolese mass as a musical motif hints at the escape to another world that Travis and his friends long for.

Many people (myself included) have looked for some sort of meaning in the unusual mixture of black and white, and colour film in If…, there was even a rumour at the time of the film’s release that the black and white scenes had been included because the production had run out of money and could not afford to process all the scenes in colour. In fact, they filmed the first chapel scene in black and white because, in tests, the natural light rendered the high speed colour film they were using grainy, and shifting colours coming through the stained glass window made colour-correction impossible. When Anderson checked the dailies he liked the way the monochrome ‘broke up the surface of the film’ and decided to insert more black and white scenes to disorientate the viewer.

Although a piece of its time If… still resonates. The young, charismatic, pseudo-liberal headmaster with his condescending understanding of Travis and his band of ‘hair rebels’ smacks of David Cameron (or any of the current shower of ‘caring’ Tories). And having served a brief sentence in the early nineties at a public school where some of the scenes in If… were shot, I can confirm that many of the prefects’ more unadmirable attitudes were still very much in evidence then. With the UK government’s Cabinet once again stuffed full of Eton’s spawn, and many of the grand old institutions in the City teetering, what better time to take a seditious look at Anderson’s anarchic fantasy?