JEREMY Irons had it written into his contract for Lolita that he would not have to do publicity for the film. Not so as you'd notice. Irons has been ubiquitous in the media in his defence of Adrian Lyne's film.

''I knew I'd get myself into trouble,'' he says, in explanation of that now worthless clause.

It wasn't difficult. The film has gathered dust awaiting a distributor as paedophilia hysteria grew. Inevitably - and self evidently - no-one in the chorus of objectors had actually seen the film. Equally, nowhere in the furore about the film has it ever been suggested that the novel on which it is based has suddenly become the output of a depraved mind instead of a classic of twentieth-century literature.

''The distributors took the reasoned economic view that the public flak they would have to sustain wouldn't justify the amount of money they'd make from it,'' says Irons, wearily.

''Politically, it was the worst possible time to try to put it out. Paedophilia is a very emotive word with an extraordinary range of meaning. There is a very muddled perception of the film, but at worst it might make us talk and think. I couldn't believe that the US has so lost faith in its society that it is scared to allow that.

''Five years ago we would have been alright, I suppose. But actually, I understand that there were paedophiles before there were movies.''

The problem is clearly that movies - even ones that attempt to be as faithful to the book as Lyne's does - are somehow perceived as more dangerous than books. Irons, of course, casts that in terms of an advantage. ''The original cut was three-and-a-quarter hours because we wanted to keep the true spirit of the book. I don't believe for a minute that the movie is better than the book, but it will bring the story to the attention of more people.

''We have to understand why Humbert is what he is - that is not legitimising him.

''Humbert is a chameleon in the book, but in a movie you can't have protagonists who are unappealing. If Humbert is a monster, it wouldn't work. But I think Lolita is also much nicer than she is in the book.

''She is a victim, but not a passive victim. Children, from the time they are born, are practising with power. Adolescents test their sexual charm - so Lolita is delighted to have an adult in her thrall.

''When children practise flirting on us, we as adults have to recognise they're practising.''

While Irons confesses to hesitating to take the role (''I've played too many guys who are at the edges of what is acceptable. I wanted to play someone you'd have to dinner.''), he is concerned about the effect the film might have on the career of Dominique Swain.

''She grew up during the shoot - we couldn't have done the beginning of the film at the end of the shoot - but a 14-year-old Californian girl knows pretty much about everything. What worries me more is the possible stigma that attaches to her playing Lolita. I hope her career comes through that.

''Anything 'difficult' was done by body doubles - the producers were very worried about accusation of corrupting a minor. There was a cushion between us when she sat on my lap - and the cushion was videoed for legal protection,'' he laughs.

Would he have allowed his daughter to take the role?

''I wouldn't let my daughter play the Virgin Mary in a big-budget film.''

There are things about the film he doesn't like - the banana-eating is too obvious - but Irons is dismayed that the duty of the arts to face difficult subjects has been challenged.

''It is a fable, warning that this could be you if you do that. I think we are all capable of anything. There are no good or bad people - people are misadvised or miseducated. It is so easy to make mistakes, and most of us are capable of most things in the wrong situation.''

n Next week, Herald readers will give their verdict on Lolita.