Watching Dolores tease and cajole throughout the movie felt unnatural
I think you missed a critical point, one which is easy to miss in the movie (both movies) because they don't push it.
That point is, what's depicted is Humbert's story. He is most certainly not an objective narrator, and what we see in the film is his subjective memory of events. Or in other words, Humbert
remembers
Lolita as sexy and flirtatious, and the story lies in Humbert's memories. We are supposed to know that his memories may or may not be correct, and we don't know what's factual and what's imagined.
Another example of this unreliability, which gets a lot less attention, is Charlotte's demise. It's sudden and brief, almost
deus ex machina
. Yes, there's a scene with her death, but it does not even include the actual accident. It's a rather sharp contrast to the rich and warm depictions of Humbert's interactions with Lolita. As the widower, he apparently never has to deal with Charlotte's estate. I interpret this as showing that in Humbert's memory, Charlotte just vanished, since he never really wanted to think about her at all.
Edward

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

you see a girl at a dance club, she looks hot, you ask her to dance, you are swept up in her charms, she likes you, and vice-versa, the two of you leave the place, looking for somewhere cosy, and warm.
back at the motel, you make love, the windows are fogging up, the bed is drenched in sweat, your bodies are intertwined, she gets up and goes to the bathroom, suddenly her purse falls to the ground and her wallet opens up revealing her ID card, She is only 14 years old.
do you
a) grab your cock and run for your life?
b) say nothing and enjoying the evening.
"eeeEEEKK!I mean, aaaaARGGH!"

Considering you're a gay communist living in Europe that thinks Americans are brain dead, I think I'll steer well clear of "Death in Venice."

The real problem is that no-one wants to really discuss this question SERIOUSLY.
Everyone wants the whole problem to go away!
OF COURSE Hollywood should tread there!
Why NOT?
Because it makes you feel "uncomfortable"?
Are you brain dead or what?
(Or just American? It becomes almost the same thing)
Death in Venice is a masterpiece, based on an extremely famous book.
It is obviously beyond YOUR appreciation, but that isn't a reason for Hollywood to stay away from such topics and by the way, the film was made by an Italian.

I can see why you felt uncomfortableafter all it's a tragedy, so it's natural that you feel sad.
I have a great taste for art movies,
but I'm afraid this is waters Hollywood should never tread.
Then you should stay away from "Death in Venice", I was literally boiling over with rage when I was watching this one, seriously..if something like that happened to me or to a member of my family I would have beat the beep out of the guy!

Superb. I always suspected there's something fishy about the immaculate conception story.

"Yes it is a very disturbing movie (barely legal?) and i felt the same watching it for the firsth time. In the book she is 12!!!!! that is realy bad, this guy must be locked up big time. But in the movie she is 17 so you are not disgusted by watching it in the same way. "
In the new testament based On the social mores of the time.. it is believed that Mary, the Mother of jesus, was 14 or 15, when she married Joseph, who was believed to be in his mid 20's to early 30's In other words the step Father of our savior, had he come calling on mary today, would be on "To catch a Predator"
Not saying that it is ok for a 30 year old to have sex with a 12 year old, Just saying that different cultures have different beliefs at different times.
We are supposed to be uncomfortable as we watch Lolita, we are supposed to find Humbert a disgusting individual. Obviously his depiction of Lolita is self serving, because if for one Moment hye actually saw his actions for what they were, instead of for what he wished them to be he would have killed himself.

I thought she was fourteen in the movie?

Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL

Yes it is a very disturbing movie (barely legal?) and i felt the same watching it for the firsth time. In the book she is 12!!!!! that is realy bad, this guy must be locked up big time. But in the movie she is 17 so you are not disgusted by watching it in the same way.

This message has been deleted.

Hamana.

Very well said..

You are right. A man who claims not find Dominique Swain sexually attractive in this film, is a man suspected of hiding something.

[
Watching Dolores tease and cajole throughout the movie felt unnatural
Unnatural? If you read a biology book, you will realize that the age of reproduction begins during adolescence, this
fact
of nature indicates also that for biological and reproductive purposes in order to perpetuate the species a person on those ages is commonly sexually desirable.
In other words, it is more unnatural to feel the way you did than the opposite.
You felt that way because of the way your society has brainwashed you and led you to believe. You live in a society that is adamantly paranoid and full of tabooes about sex and uncapable to recognize a child from an adolescent. Which is the reason why the so called pedophilia is 21st century's witch hunt in some countries (mainly in America).
Nevertheless, if you research the ages of consent of different countries around the world you will be incredibly surprised.
Life is precious, and its our own - not any gods.

This message has been deleted.

OF COURSE this is an uncomfortable movie.
nothing is nothing, and everything everything
depending on how you see it

It has been some time since I saw the movie. I cannot recall the "hurt".
I do recall Lolita demanding money at the hotel, turning Humbert to a John, and a dupe, and making their intimacies mere acts of prostitution.
Certainly Humbert isn't legally innocent. Lolita is underage but only chronologically. Morally speaking, he is the more innocent of the two the way Nabokov would have it.
["We have all strength enough to bear the misfortunes of others./"]
La Rochefoucault

This message has been deleted.

OF COURSE this is an uncomfortable movie.
It's an artfully photographed, well acted, skillfully directed story of sexual perversion told from the perpetrator's viewpoint. The pedophile always imagines his victim is flirting with him, is actually the initiator of the sexual contact however absurd that may be. Never can he think of himself as a bad person.
In this story, the girl is quite the sexpot at age twelve and does very blatantly flirt with this man. He is not a criminal but a civilized, sensitive intellectual plunged in an America of uncultured philistines and morons. He is handsome, well spoken, dresses well. And he's a victim of a childhood tragedy. So what happens can't be his faultnot really.
Today people are much more aware of pedophilia, perhaps too much so, but even in the early fifties this was dangerous stuff.
["We have all strength enough to bear the misfortunes of others./"]
La Rochefoucault

Thank you. That's exactly right.

Eh, nice anecdote. I'm sure most children can account to sexual curiosity (it is natural) with adults. However, the story of Lolita is told through Humbert's point of view. Whatever we see/read is skewed in his favor.
My word is my beep bond!
-I Love You Phillip Morris