books to film

Vladimir Nabokov wrote a 400-page screenplay for ‘Lolita’. It needs to be made into a film

The writer merged writing and cinema, bringing the art forms together like no one before or since.

When Vladimir Nabokov was approached by Stanley Kubrick in 1959 about making a movie of his masterpiece, Lolita, Nabokov at first refused the temptation to write the screenplay. But then, having “experienced a small nocturnal illumination, of diabolical origin”, he fell into a cinematic dream and composed his now famously impossible 400-page screenplay.

Kubrick’s producer, James B Harris, was typically dismissive: “You couldn’t make it. You couldn’t lift it.” His words reflected the standard film industry condescension towards writers. But what neither Harris nor Kubrick realised was that Nabokov was streets ahead of them.

Almost 30 years earlier, when Kubrick was just four years old and cinema was in its infancy, Nabokov wrote a short novel in Russian called Kamera Obskura (soon translated into English as Laughter in the Dark). It told the story of a man, Albinus, slightly drunk with the idea of cinema, who falls for an aspiring actress and whose life ends in disaster. The novel is a movie – not literally – but literarily. Here are a few of the words of Albinus’ disastrous ending:

Stage directions for last silent scene: door – wide open. Table – thrust away from it. Carpet – bulging up at table foot in a frozen wave. Chair – lying close by dead body of man in purplish brown suit and felt slippers. Automatic pistol not visible. It is under him. Cabinet where the miniatures had been – empty. On the other (small) table, on which ages ago a porcelain ballet-dancer stood (later transferred to another room) lies a woman’s glove, black outside, white inside. By the striped sofa stands a smart suitcase, with a coloured label still adhering to it: ‘Rouginard, Hotel Britannia’.

This is the most explicitly scripted piece of writing in the novel which provides a distillation of the state of cinema at the time, ending with that cinematic cliché: the post-murder room in disarray.

A few of the phrases in the extract remain purely literary – in a screenplay, one doesn’t mention anything that can’t be seen, as Nabokov mentions the invisible gun and the porcelain ballet-dancer. Others are pure screenplay. The phrase “stage directions for last silent scene” is such a postmodern touch that it is amazing to find it in a work from the early 1930s.

Play
Lolita (1962).

Cinema, like butterflies (Nabokov was a respected lepidopterist), and all the things Nabokov worked over obsessively in his novels, had clearly taken hold of him at a young age. The opening paragraph of his 1966 memoir, Speak, Memory, refers to the disturbing childhood experience of seeing home movies taken weeks before he was born – before he existed – and feeling that his mother’s wave from an upstairs window was some mysterious farewell. This seems to encapsulate Nabokov’s ambivalent feeling for cinema and its centrality to his art. The power of the visible surface, the very many possible interpretations of any filmed action.

But Laughter in the Dark is more than just inspired by the movies. It is, in its conception, a fusion of novel and film. Like Joseph Conrad before him, Nabokov dreamt of making the reader “see” (see the movie in the mind’s eye, and feel the power of the images). Proof that he was self-consciously writing a movie occurs when Albinus, having an hour to kill, goes to the cinema.

At the movie theatre, there is a publicity poster which “portrayed a man looking up at a window framing a child in a nightshirt”. This photographically composed image, with its double framing of the child, is evidence of Nabokov’s acute cinematic sense. The framed child reappears later on, in the form of Albinus’ own daughter in a window, but by this time the reader has forgotten the poster. The “viewer” on the other hand, would not have.

Fantastic possibilities

And it may only have been on second writing that these images made their way into the story. Laughter in the Dark is Nabokov’s own translation from the Russian original, which means the method too was like that of the screenwriter, who writes many drafts, maybe using index cards as Nabokov did. So Laughter in the Dark became a dramatised analysis of the difference between a novel and a movie.

It is also a demonstration of the lessons a novelist can learn from the art of cinema and of the fantastic possibilities of cinema’s visual language. Not until Alfred Hitchcock’s greatest films did cinema achieve anything like the fluidity or visual acrobatics of Laughter in the Dark. Here, in Nabokov’s wonderful language, we find not just the cinematic staging of “scenes”, but framing, montage, snappy dialogue, the jump cut, the wide-angle shot, the aerial shot, the extreme close-up, even dramatic lighting effects.

Yet, from the 1950s onwards, under the influence of the Auteur Theory, the movie industry contrived to keep novelists as far away from any power in the industry as they possibly could and to cast screenwriters (and the screenplay) as mere cogs in the production process, even banning writers from the set.

Which brings me back to the “impossible” screenplay for Lolita. The only thing impossible about it is its length. Otherwise, it is a screenplay that only a cinematic master could have written. Understandably, Kubrick had to boil its 400 pages down. But with today’s digital technology making film so much cheaper to produce and a wider variety of viewing platforms available, Nabokov’s dream could be realised, word for word, image for image.

Of the two existing adaptations, Nabokov himself lamented the flaws in the Kubrick version. He was not alive to react to Adrien Lyne’s interesting but overly sympathetic 1997 version.

His own screenplay could become the definitive screen Lolita. It could serve to protect the novel’s reputation, correct the errors of the two existing adaptations and prove once and for all that the screenplay is a legitimate literary form, as potentially complete in its vision as the novel.

Margaret Leclere, Senior Lecturer, Screenwriting English & Creative Writing, Staffordshire University.

This article first apppeared on The Conversation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

What are racers made of?

Grit, strength and oodles of fearlessness.

Sportspersons are known for their superhuman discipline, single-minded determination and the will to overcome all obstacles. Biographies, films and documentaries have brought to the fore the behind-the-scenes reality of the sporting life. Being up at the crack of dawn, training without distraction, facing injuries with a brave face and recovering to fight for victory are scenes commonly associated with sportspersons.

Racers are no different. Behind their daredevilry lies the same history of dedication and discipline. Cornering on a sports bike or revving up sand dunes requires the utmost physical endurance, and racers invest heavily in it. It helps stave off fatigue and maintain alertness and reaction time. It also helps them get the most out of their racecraft - the entirety of a racer’s skill set, to which years of training are dedicated.

Racecraft begins with something as ‘simple’ as sitting on a racing bike; the correct stance is the key to control and manoeuvre the bike. Riding on a track – tarmac or dirt is a great deal different from riding on the streets. A momentary lapse of concentration can throw the rider into a career ending crash.

Physical skill and endurance apart, racers approach a race with the same analytical rigour as a student appearing in an exam. They conduct an extensive study of not just the track, but also everything around it - trees, marshal posts, tyre marks etc. It’s these reference points that help the racer make braking or turning decisions in the frenzy of a high-stakes competition.

The inevitability of a crash is a reality every racer lives with, and seeks to internalise this during their training. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, racers are trained to keep their eyes open to help the brain make crucial decisions to avoid collision with other racers or objects on the track. Racers that meet with accidents can be seen sliding across the track with their heads held up, in a bid to minimise injuries to the head.

But racecraft is, of course, only half the story. Racing as a profession continues to confound many, and racers have been traditionally misunderstood. Why would anyone want to pour their blood, sweat and tears into something so risky? Where do racers get the fearlessness to do laps at mind boggling speed or hurtle down a hill unassisted? What about the impact of high speeds on the body day after day, or the monotony of it all? Most importantly, why do racers race? The video below explores the question.

Play


The video features racing champions from the stable of TVS Racing, the racing arm of TVS Motor Company, which recently completed 35 years of competitive racing in India. TVS Racing has competed in international rallies and races across some of the toughest terrains - Dakar, Desert Storm, India Baja, Merzouga Rally - and in innumerable national championships. Its design and engineering inputs over the years have also influenced TVS Motors’ fleet in India. You can read more about TVS Racing here.

This article has been produced by Scroll Brand Studio on behalf of TVS Racing and not by the Scroll editorial team.