"SIR, I must confess I was greatly puzzled and less than amused by the Lolita New York premiere story printed in The Observer (June 17). Michael Davie, who is not a film critic, nevertheless saw fit to write a film review of Lolita four months before the film was to be Press-shown in Britain for its September première. Aside from the professional ethics involved here, his piece was viciously flippant and rude at the expense of Mr. Nabokov, Mr. Mason, Miss Winters, Mr. Sellers, Miss Lyon and myself. An anonymous spectator was quoted as saying, "Well, anyway, no one can say look what they did to Nabokov, the poor slob. The poor slob did it to himself." I suppose it is fortunate that Mr. Nabokov was blissfully unaware of his new status as a poor slob when he said to me after the premiere, "This is a great film. Sue Lyon is marvellous; she is Lolita. There are even some things in it I wish were in the book." Mr. Davie also wrote, "In life Sue Lyon is said to be 16, In the film. she looks older. Mason, in lite, is in his fifties. He, on the other hand. looks younger. At tunes, they look the same age. At one point, she looks older than him." I shall leave it to your readers to ponder that bit of witty prose. In fact. Sue was 14 years and 4 months when we began shooting and 14 years and 9 months when we finished. Lolita was 12 years and 8 months when Humbert met her and 17 years plus at the end of the noveL Humbert was 39 when he met Lolita."