Lolita, My Love Re-envisioned

[Walcer]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 1:33pm

Hello,

Some of you may remember me from a post a few years back about a musical I had written (The Ship of Stolen Dreams). Over the past year, as a hobby (and, with a great deal of hubris), I've been reworking the script from the 1971 Boston try-out of Lolita, My Love from a director's perspective. I thought I'd put what I've done online to get some feedback and to, hopefully, start a dialogue.

You can view the complete script here...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49680865/Lolita-The-Musical

I look forward to your thoughts!

EDIT: Terribly sorry folks, but out of a fear of copyright infringement I've removed the script from online. I've also put in a request to have this thread deleted with the moderators. SORRY!
Updated On: 3/11/11 at 01:33 PM

[lakezurich]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 1:42pm

How's The Ship Of Stolen Dreams coming along?

[Walcer]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 2:07pm

Hey lakezurich! I'll PM you later today regarding SOSD, so we don't hijack this thread. Best,DW

[newintown]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 2:54pm

Do you have the rights to adapt the piece?

Aside from a lot of typos - mostly misspellings - I would say that you still haven't solved the biggest problem in not just dramatizing, but musicalizing Lolita - that is, it's a just plain nasty, distasteful story when seen acted out live.

You can solve that problem by employing a sexless yet charismatic star as Humbert (like James Mason); but then you haven't solved the deeper problem that Humbert is written to be an untrustworthy narrator.

What that all means is that Lolita needs to be more than a transparent narrative with added songs; it needs to be the equal to its source material, which I don't believe is possible. How do you create a musical with a true monster (one of literature's worst) at the center, and keep the audience after intermission?

[Walcer]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 3:44pm

Re: newintown's post.

Q: Do you have the rights to adapt the piece?
A: No. I make that clear in the disclaimer on the first page. This is for reference only and I make absolutely no claims of ownership on the source material. I had originally intended to send the script to John Barry to pursue the rights, but he passed away last month as you probably know. I have no idea where the rights are or with who they lie. Probably in a mess between the Lerner, Barry, and Nabokov estates. I am planning on contacting both Demitri Nabokov and Norman Twain (The show's original producer) for more information. Other than this, some people here may be able to give me a better idea of where to pursue the rights. At the moment the best idea I had was to write out my ideas, see if I could get public support, garner interest from a few professional theatre companies I'm in touch with and then, with their backing and clout, pursue attaining the rights and go from there. I obviously wouldn't be able to do it by myself.

I don't mean this to sound in the least bit rude, but the rest of your comments indicate that you haven't done much more than skim the script. I feel like I addressed all the problems that you brought up in my changes, but if I'm wrong and you're an amazingly fast reader who still feels otherwise, you're absolutely entitled to and I apologize.

I'd also like to make it clear that I believe any adaptation of Lolita will never be as successful as the book. The key to the success of the book, I believe, is how you can experience the story privately. Once you are sitting in a theatre full of people, God forbid you appear to enjoy what you're seeing in the fear of being labeled a monster. We're socially programmed to be highly uncomfortable around this subject matter. So, I agree, you will never solve all the problems of adaptation but I have to disagree that the musical has to be it's equal. It will never be the books equal and at it's best, I would hope that it would make people read the book. I believe in this project because Lerner and Barry wrote some beautiful material that deserves to be brought back to life. I do feel that the show will be much more successful and tolerable having been skinned down to the bare minimum and performed as intimately as possible.

Thanks for your comments!


Updated On: 2/28/11 at 03:44 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 4:06pm

It's not difficult to read 71 pages of script in an hour and a half, particularly when the story and many of the lyrics are already familiar to the reader.

[romgitsean]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 5:15pm

Walcer, check your PMs.

[twinbelters]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 5:45pm

How exciting! This is one of the most neglected musicals and I have been hoping it would attract attention such as you are giving it, Walcer. I look forward to reading this.

[bk]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 6:02pm

When you say "reworking" the script why don't you be specific - how much is Lerner, how much is the author of the book, how much is S. Kubrick, and how much is YOU.

I can tell you that having a voiceover narration in a stage play is a terrible idea - it's fine in the film, not fine on stage.

[Almira]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 6:20pm

Never thought the book to LOLITA, MY LOVE was a problem. In fact, I've always been in awe of the book. Lerner left Albee in the dust when it came to adapting that novel for the stage.

If there is a practical problem with the book, it might be that it is too good an adaptation. The disturbing aspects of the novel are addressed just enough to make any audience uncomfortable.

[Walcer]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 6:24pm

Re. BK's response:

I tried my best to rundown who did what on the second page (scenes & musical numbers listing). When it comes to the book, it's much more difficult to tell. Sometimes I changed a word here and there, sometimes it's a whole new scene.

The only source material I used was from what was written by Lerner and Nabokov (Nabokov's novel & screenplay.) Remember, the Nabokov screenplay is very different from the film that was made. The only thing I believe I borrowed from Kubrick was expanding upon the chameleon aspect of Quilty.

I felt it important to change as little as I possibly could from the Lerner script. I also tried to completely avoid borrowing things from the 2 films (aside from the aforementioned Quilty thing). Personally, I'm not a fan of the Kubrick film, although I know many are. Lolita fans are really divided into 2 groups, the Kubrick dark comedy fans and the original novel/ 1997 movie fans. What Kubrick created was quite simply not even close to the original Lolita. This being said, I attempted to create a moderate balance with both. Act One is more musical/dark comedy where Act Two gets a bit darker and more serious like the book.

With regards to the voice over narration, each to their own. I am not at all a follower of "traditional" theatre methods and I really like to incorporate "filmic" elements into my productions. I've been quite successful at it in the past. I felt by incorporating it here it would allow me to layer the action, telling one thing auditorially while telling another thing (with an opposing perspective) visually. All the narrations (live and pre-recorded) should sound the same with a barely noticeable slightly hollow quality so as to differentiate them from the live action.




Updated On: 3/3/11 at 06:24 PM

[Walcer]

Posted: 2/28/11 at 7:35pm

Almira, having said the original book was "too good an adaptation," I'd be very interested to hear your reasons as to why the original production was a failure. Do you think it was simply the subject matter?

[lazysunbathers]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 9:00pm

Walcer, check your PMs - have a left you a few nuggets of info regarding this project.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/8/11 at 9:12pm

Walcer, yes, I think it is subject matter.