Does the ending mean Humbert was cured of his pedophilia?
-
scndform — 11 years ago(March 07, 2015 07:47 AM)
hello, I will try to answer your question as best I can, but one thing you need to know about the story of Lolita is that many of the questions it arises have pretty subjective answers which are intentionally up to the viewer/reader to answer for themselves.
The thing about both films is that Humbert is portrayed more as a man who became obsessed and/or fell in love with a minor, whereas in the novel he makes no bones about the fact that he's primarily attracted to girls between the ages of 12-14. The reader also knows he is a closet sexual predator and that he's been on the look-out for a "Lolita" for quite some time before he meets Dolores Haze.
Toward the end of the novel after Humbert sees Lo for the last time he emphatically insists that he has had an epiphany and that it isn't Lo's age that he has come to love but Lo herself,that even when she is an old woman he will still love her.
So has Humbert been "cured?" Well, remember he is on trial for murder and the entire story he has been telling is part of his defense. He has even been occasionally speaking to the "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury" while telling his tale. So,then,is he trying to gain sympathy, or laying his conscience bare in self-damnation? Is he truly repentant and striving for some level of forgiveness or is he just a sick pervert very cleverly attempting to manipulate and control his circumstances? (the law, jury, and society) Perhaps the truth is even a little of both.
I've read the book numerous times so I lean more toward the latter explanation, but as I said, the answers you seek are very subjective and this is only my opinion.
I would like encourage you to read the novel. It is one of the most brilliant works of literature I've ever read and if you enjoyed the films you will probably love the novel. Plus I think it will give you better insight into the complete character of Humbert so that you will be better able to form your own personal perspectives regarding the story.
Hope this helped. -
waleed90 — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 03:08 PM)
Thanks for your answer. I have only read the first few pages of the novel then I got busy but I intend to complete it soon, or maybe listen to the audio book as it is read by Jeremy Irons himself
In fact your answer helped a lot specially the trial defense thing, it hasn't occurred to me.
But wasn't he on trial for killing Quitly? If so, do you think he would benefit much from gaining sympathy of the jury and society, even though he admitted he has been in sexual relation with Lolita as an underage and killed Quitly! -
scndform — 11 years ago(March 27, 2015 04:49 PM)
You are correct- Humbert is on trial for murder, but you need to ask why did he murder Quilty? In part, for what he (Quilty) did to Lo, and also in part jealousy, but also because Humbert feels Quilty has robbed him of his chance of redemption.
Humbert had wanted Lo to go with him so that he could have a second chance at beginning a new relationship and make amends for all of the wrongs he had done her before. He hoped Lo would forgive him and that this time things would go better and they would live and grow old together living happily ever after.
If Lo had gone with him he had intended to just forget all about Quilty- he would have had to in order to live his HEA with Lo. However, If Lo refused to go with him this meant he wouldn't be able to gain the forgiveness and redemption he was seeking from her so there was no reason now not to go after Quilty and make him pay for the wrongs Humbert believes he has commited against him.
I guess he might have been hoping he could build up the killing of Quilty as a "murder of passion." It's happened more than once that juries have been swayed by this defense. -
lilacnoir — 11 years ago(March 08, 2015 08:49 PM)
to keep it simple, no.
i don't believe pedophilia can be cured as it is somewhat of a sexual orientation. he does regret what he has done to Lo and realizes how wrong it was but I don't think he has stopped being attracted to "nymphets". however it could be taken that he has learned to never act on his feelings for a minor again, realizing how much he had corrupted Lo.
but as the previous commenter said, there's more to be taken away from in the book. and also there's no way to be absolutely certain about any of the events/outcomes as it is told from a biased point of view. -
waleed90 — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 03:19 PM)
I think I agree with you on the part of him learning not to act on his feelings again, since I believe Humbert in the film was not meant to presented as the villain, but rather as a man of pervert sexual orientation, and seeing how he corrupted Lolita and robbed her of her childhood, may have caused him some feelings of guilt, so he decided to make it up her by taking her out of that beep she was living in.
-
HalfBloodPrincess1967 — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 02:57 PM)
I think his feelings for her started out as lust, because he was emotionally stunted or damaged, because of the death of his first love, Annabel. He spent the whole book trying to turn her in to his image of Annabel, and taking advantage of her. In some ways, he damaged her way more than Quilty, who was pretty straight forward about who he was, Humbert wasn't. Humbert pretended to be a father figure (which is what she really needed), but victimized her by inadvertently causing her mothers death (not that Charlotte was mother of the year either), and then lying to her about it. In the end, though, he realizes too late how he took her for granted, and in fact robbed her of her childhood. I think he was cured of it, in the sense that he finally got over Annabel, not that it matters, because he
dies in prison anyway.
AVADA KEDAVRA!!! -
rbrowne23 — 10 years ago(May 25, 2015 12:57 PM)
No, if you remember him looking out onto the landscape where the school is and he can hear the children and says something about missing that Lolita's voice isn't part of the crowd i.e. she's not typically a child anymore.
-
roofall — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 10:28 AM)
Yes but it can open to interpretation When people had told me years ago (including my parents, in mentioning, lol) how it's a disgusting movie - they forgot to mention that it's a beep MASTERPIECE.
He wasn't sick and got cured, he wasn't normal and gave in to temptation and went on an extreme journey. He wasn't a hundred other things that we can guess, because there's only one of him, right.
Man, this movie Every time I see it, even years later It's so special. This screenplay, this picture. Special. -
rvdl-69920 — 10 years ago(August 27, 2015 04:17 PM)
a pedophile can cure from pedophilia like a hetero can cure from heterosexuality - it's a hormone affair within the brain.
If its not a disease it is a quirk of nature that comes to be in the uterus. Homo/Hetero/Pedo/etc it all starts from the very zygote in the womb. It would be beyond stupid to think that Nurture can nanny Nature. -
clong_clong — 10 years ago(September 02, 2015 12:42 AM)
@ Waleed90
"First of all, I haven't read the novel"
Well, you should. It's 100 times better than any of the movies, it's a jewel of literature and on of the greatest best-seller of the world literature (more than 50 millions copies sold!).
"Does that mean that his love for Lolita maybe cured him of his pedophilia"
No. I think it's clear to anyone having read the book, Humbert is what he is.
BTW, for the ones that have read the book, here's something interesting:
Nabokov (the author of "Lolita") in several of his interviews (particularly in a 1964 article) had admitted having embedded a riddle in "Lolita", here you can read a convincing solution to this riddle (but you have to know the book well to realise it).
Heres a link:
https://wittevlinders.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/lolita-riddle-solved/
or alternately,
http://lolitasriddle.blogspot.com/2014/10/lolitas-riddle-solved.html -
Freddyfan951 — 10 years ago(September 22, 2015 07:56 PM)
He realized that Dolores never loved him, and that he never really loved her either. When he realized that it was the idea of her he loved, he saw her for the separate person that she was, and not the nymphet Annabel he was trying to force her to be. In the end he is remorseful of the fact that he stole her childhood and ruined her life.
I think he had an epiphany that did not cure him of his urges, but the delusions he was living with. -
Brandos_Bitch — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 08:20 AM)
I dont know if he's cure of it, but at the end he does seem to finally grasp how destructive it is. Pedophiles are attracted to children because of their innocence but when they act on it, they end up destroying that very thing.I think HH realized it at the end.
"When life presents you with lemons, squeeze out the juice and squirt it in your enemies eyes."