Licorice Pizza/Lolita Essays

 The Problematic Masterfulness of Licorice Pizza

By Logan Tyler Smith   

It’s honestly rare to see a movie that gets both all of the attention and none of the right attention. Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2021 film ‘Licorice Pizza’ has been getting a lot of critical acclaim, but ultimately has not been without its more negative critics. The crazy thing appears to be that both sides of the critical aisle have valid reasons to like or not like this film. Even if you like other Paul Thomas Anderson films (like I do) you have valid reasons to not/not like it, even if I personally like it despite its flaws. Either way, the film’s superior storytelling and craft does not change its more problematic elements. 

    Licorice Pizza appears to be a love letter to San Fernando Valley, California. The film travels lightly from one short narrative to the other, and the characters are always at the center of it in one form or another. The many business ventures the characters get in as well as the family drama of the characters are, at least on paper, irrelevant. However, our understanding of who the characters are and our vague desire to follow their journey where it goes makes it feel like a coherent narrative. The reason for this ‘light’ narrative is simple; it’s to sketch San Fernando Valley in a positive light. The light narrative traveling through the various institutions of the area through the characters really adds to this. The narrative definitely fits the love letter format in a way that its character-centric narrative seems almost nostalgic. This is reflected by the events of the story as well as the character’s journey through the events; that is what makes it a love letter to San Fernando Valley. 

    The film also features great camerawork and filmmaking craft that adds to the narrative mentioned earlier. The narrative may drift from one event to the other, but the camera appears to do something similar. The camera seems to drift from one character/event to another, only fixing on a character during moments of (seeming) importance. The production design is similarly great; the period-appropriate clothing and locations of the 1970s seems to be accurately reflected in the costumes and set design. The camera work, production design, and blocking of characters and events are all masterfully done. The character’s staging in certain scenes (including the many business ventures of the main character) is never flashy but is always precise in its delivery of information without words. Showing instead of telling becomes another tool the entire production crew uses to their advantage. All of this amplifies the filmmaking craft to another level. 

    Despite all of these positive filmmaking qualities, there are problematic, statutory elements at play. While the quote-unquote ‘romance’ at the center of the story is relatively chaste, it still exists at the center of the story. I mentioned stellar blocking earlier, and the scene of the main female character seemingly being at the center of two worlds (as is depicted in the blocking of the scene, taking place on a sidewalk) is as effective as it is uncomfortable. The main female character is definitely too old for the main male character, and the fact that this ‘romance’ is never condemned is unfortunate. The cast’s chemistry really adds to the discomfort, and doesn’t do the film any favors. If anything, the aforementioned filmmaking craft that adds to the story does not add to the subject matter or cast chemistry. The main characters almost seem to sizzle on camera; which many people have more than pointed out how wrong that is. It’s not the only problematic element of an otherwise well-made product, but it is the one I feel I need to address. 

    The film may be problematic, but it does have elements that are sure to be beloved among cinephile audiences, and especially fans of Paul Thomas Anderson. The film is inherently cinematic and features a well-told, character-driven story that also functions as a love letter to an area the director seems to remember well. However, the problematic elements and uncomfortable chemistry of the cast could turn off anyone, movie lover or not. Ultimately, the film’s superior craft and storytelling simply cannot change it’s more problematic elements.

The True Discomfort of Lolita

By Logan Tyler Smith

Have you ever wondered what a really uncomfortable experience would be? You probably never would have guessed it would be a film from the 1960s of all decades. Stanley Kubrick is a filmmaking master by most people’s accounts, but Lolita is not his best work by any stretch of the imagination. Lolita is an uncomfortable experience of the 1960s. While it is technically masterful, its problematic elements and garish acting ultimately make it deeply discomforting.

The film is absolutely a technical masterpiece. Being a film from the 1960s, it has technical limitations that Lolita more than supersedes. This is unsurprising coming from Stanley Kubrick; everything from the framing of shots to the rhythm of the editing is perfect. While Kubrick would show more than enough mastery in films before and after this one, it still shows here. Kubrick’s mastery of film form is mostly objective; by that I mean the character is usually at eye level objectively observing the events of the story. It does verge into subjectivity (ie showing the characters POV) in a few key scenes. These usually happen in the more uncomfortable scenes, but it’s still pretty effective. Kubrick was always a technical master, and it shows here as much as it does in other films by him. 

    Unfortunately, the films subject matter offsets almost everything technically redeeming about the film. The main character is a bona fide predator and his eventual stepdaughter is absolutely a victim. This is drawn out to uncomfortable proportions as the situation gets incrementally worse. While the film does leave a lot of the predatory stuff to the imagination, it is strongly implied to the point where the events of the story (offscreen or not) is beyond question. The fact that we follow a character we genuinely find deplorable does not make us want to continue the movie. I finished the movie purely as a matter of study; I did not care about any of the horrific characters other than the main character’s stepdaughter (though that was mostly a feeling of pity rather than genuine care). All of this seems to make the truly stellar craft on display somewhat irrelevant. The subject matter is unfortunately atrocious. 

    While the subject matter is terrible, the acting does not make the characters any more likable in the context of the film. The characters, beyond not really being cared for narratively, are not well-performed either. The acting does not add a shred of likability or sympathy for the otherwise still horrible characters. A lot of this could be because of the lack of demand for a project of this subject matter, but the actors nonetheless phone it in. Also, some of this is due to the inherent narrative unlikability of the characters and not one-hundred percent to do with the acting. It’s hard to make these characters even remotely sympathetic, but the actors seem as uncomfortable as we are. It is unfortunate (if understandable) that the actors did not appear to try their best throughout the movie. The acting and the subject matter add together as a detriment to the film. 

    The film is discomforting on many levels. Obviously, the craft on display is great, but the subject matter and acting do not do a good job of elevating the atrocious material .It is unfortunate that it turned out to not be Kubrick’s best film. Truly, the discomfort of Lolita will persist to the end of time. 

The Comparisons of Licorice Pizza and Lolita

By Logan Tyler Smith

    Lolita and Licorice Pizza are comparable in obvious ways. Both are films made by respected filmmakers either during or based during the early stages of the filmmaker’s career. Whether it’s Paul Thomas Anderson’s childhood or one of Kubrick’s early Hollywood movies. However, there are many more similarities between the two movies. Lolita and Licorice Pizza have similarities in subject matter and craft, if not necessarily acting or characters. 

    It’s clear that Lolita and Licorice Pizza are united by problematic subject matter. Both films focus on underage people being exploited (explicitly or not) by people illegally older than them. Licorice Pizza reverses the genders, but that’s about all it adds/detracts to the situation. This subject has been rightly criticized across the years (or in the case of Licorice Pizza, when it came out) and the discomfort is real for many people. They both feature this problematic element at the center of the story, mostly. In both cases it can be about as uncomfortable as you’d expect. Discomfort aside, it’s easy to see this as a moral failing at the heart of both films. Lolita and Licorice Pizza are united by this unfortunate moral failing. 

    Both films are also well-made as far as filmmaking craft goes. However they are well-made in different ways. Lolita is made with the Kubrick approach - impeccable framing and editing. Licorice Pizza is well-made in the sense of flexibility and fluidity; moving from one situation to another with true fluid precision. Lolita may be more rigid than Licorice Pizza, and are both really well-made. However, both film’s circumstantially superior craft add to the problematic elements in a way that adds to a feeling of sickness, either for all or just some viewers. This ultimately does the film a disservice; a well-made film that is legitimately sickening is not always a recipe for solid cinema. Truly, they are both well-made at the very least. 

    There is an important difference to bring up; despite its problematic elements Licorice Pizza nevertheless has significantly more likable characters than Lolita. Lolita’s problematic elements are driven by the abhorrent characters maintained by bad acting. Licorice Pizza, however, actually has charismatic actors that really sell the chemistry of the characters. Problematic or not, one clearly maintains better performances than the other. Whether the acting is good or bad, either way it can detract from the unfortunate previous two elements of the film. One having better acting almost seems arbitrary taking the previous two points in mind. However, it is a significant difference that is worth addressing. Licorice Pizza does have better characters than Lolita by a significant margin, even if comparable in their actions/intentions. 

    Lolita and Licorice Pizza are definitely comparable in more ways than one. Beyond being a controversial dent in the stellar careers of Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson, they clearly have bad subject matters amplified by unfortunately good filmmaking craft. None of this is helped by an acting gap, with Licorice Pizza having superior acting and more likable characters than Lolita. These are definitely the true comparisons of Licorice Pizza and Lolita.