Look at this! Look at this fucking thing! This was done in 1986, and used absolutely no CGI whatsoever. It was ALL practical, and ALL done through puppetry. Look at the last gif. Over a dozen vines are moving at once along with its head, lips, and tongue! In interviews Rick Moranis has stated he often forgot he was working with a puppet, as opposed to a really ugly guy. Even today it looks so real. Audrey ii is nothing short of miraculous
The practical effects of Little Shop of Horrors was fucking astounding. It’s worth it to mention that, in the scenes where the plant is moving, the filming was slowed to 12 to 16 frames a second, so that the film could be sped up to give the Audrey II a more lifelike appearance. In such scenes where actors like Rick Moranis had to speak with the plant, he had to mouth his lines at a slower-than-normal speed while still looking convincing, only to have his voice added in post.
It’s also worth mentioning that a crew of 60+ puppeteers were needed to operate the plant, as the entire puppet weighed over a ton.
It’s so strangely entertaining to see people finding out with shock that these movies didn’t use computer effects.
This movie came out when I was little and still feels like a recent phenomenon to me. I never knew computers could be used to DRAW with until years later, nobody I knew had ever touched one, and no 3-d digital imagery would have existed at the time that looked remotely convincing.
I mean, I was there when THIS was considered the most jaw-dropping cutting edge of video game graphics, years after this movie:
CG effects didn’t go mainstream until Jurassic Park, and even that still used gigantic puppets and animatronics for many of its scenes.
Puppetry by the late 80′s had been refined to the point of really looking like a flesh and blood creature, but then Hollywood became enamored with computer effects and started all over again. It feels like CG here in 2018 is only just now managing to look as real as 1989′s latex puppet work, but still looks really off to me. There’s still no perfect replacement for a real, physical on-set object.
And Audrey II was brilliantly voiced by the great Levi Stubbs, who had so many great hits with the Four Tops. Incredible singer. He actually did a few verses in “Audrey II” style on the Four Tops’ Christmas Album that came out a little after the movie.
here’s a question: if vladimir nabokov’s “lolita” is truly the psychological portrait of a messed up dude and not the girl – let alone a sexualized little girl, as all of the sexualization happens inside humbert humbert’s head – then why do all the covers focus on a girl, and usually a sexy aspect of a girl, usually quite young, and none of them feature a portrait of humbert humbert?
here are nabokov’s original instructions for the book cover:
I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. … Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.
and yet, the representations of the sexy little girl abound.
i became driven by curiousity. why did this happen? why is this happening?
i am not alone – there’s a book about this, with several essays and artists’ conceptions about the politics and problems of representation surrounding the covers of “lolita.” this new yorker article gives a summary of the book and its ideas, and interviews one of the editors:
Many of the covers guilty of misrepresenting Lolita as a teen seductress feature images from Hollywood movie adaptations of the book— Kubrick’s 1962 version, starring Sue Lyon, and Adrian Lyne’s 1997 one. Are those films primarily to blame for the sexualization of Lolita?
As is argued in several of the book’s essays, the promotional image of Sue Lyon in the heart-shaped sunglasses, taken by photographer Bert Stern, is easily the most significant culprit in this regard, much more so than the Kubrick film itself (significantly, neither the sunglasses nor the lollipop ever appears in the film), or the later film by Adrian Lyne. Once this image became associated with “Lolita”—and it’s important to remember that, in the film, Lolita is sixteen years old, not twelve—it really didn’t matter that it was a terribly inaccurate portrait. It became the image of Lolita, and it was ubiquitous. There are other factors that have contributed to the incorrect reading, from the book’s initial publication in Olympia Press’s Traveller’s Series (essentially, a collection of dirty books), to Kubrick’s startlingly unfaithful adaptation. At the heart of all of this seems to be the desire to make the sexual aspect of the novel more palatable.
here’s a couple of kubrick inspired covers:
which very well could have, after tremendous sales, have influenced the following covers:
…straying so far from the intention of nabokov that the phenomenon begins to look more like the symptom of something larger, something sicker.
after a lot of researching covers, it was here, in this sampling of concept covers for the book about the lolita covers, that i found an image that best represents the story to me:
[art by linn olofsdotter – and again, this is not an official cover]
but why aren’t all the covers like that? even the ones published by “legitimate” publishing companies, with full academic credentials, with no intended connection to the film; surely they must have read nabokov’s instructions for the cover. and yet, look at the top row of lolita covers: all legitimate publishing companies, not prone to smut. and yet.
my conclusion is that the lolita complex existed before “lolita” (and of course it did) – a patriarchal society is essentially operating with the same delusions of humbert humbert. nabokov did not produce the sexy girl covers of lolita, and kubrick had only the smallest hand in it. it was what people desired, requested and bought. the image of the sexy girl sells; intrigues; gets the hands on the books.
as elizabeth janeway said in her review in the new york review of books: “Humbert is every man who is driven by desire, wanting his Lolita so badly that it never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh.”
isn’t that our media as a whole? our culture as a whole?
the whole lot of them/us – seeing the world through humbert-tinted glasses, seeing all others as Other and Object, as solipsistic dream-reality. as i scroll through the “lolita” covers i wonder: where’s the humanity in our humanity?
