Watching a series of 8 films by Bunuel during the last ten days, I was repeatedly struck by parallels with the oeuvre of Nabokov, as well as between the authors. Suspecting that I couldn’t be alone in sensing this correspondence, by putting Bunuel/Nabokov into Google, in order to arm myself with a soupçon of research, my suspicions were confirmed, and the topic had clearly arisen at least 10 years ago, and been repeatedly touched on in the list archives and elsewhere.

Without wanting to go round in circles, I thought I’d make, or repeat, a few points in case anyone felt the subject worth discussing.

Nabokov and Bunuel were born within a year of each other.
Both were cosmopolitan exiles, and led peripatetic creative lives.
Both were interested in insect life: Bunuel was an entomologist.
Both created multiple works in non-native languages.
As early as 1960, Green suggested that Nabokov "had clearly sat through no end of avant garde films" and went on to identify Cocteau, the early Buñuel, and Dali among the influences. [Zoran Kuzmanovich; 2005]
The key link for me between Bunuel and Nabokov is that both are masters of surrealism. [Rodney Welch; 1997]
I think the artist who could suggest the depths of sexual depravity -- with nary an obscenity --- in LOLITA would appreciate Bunuel's masterful BELLE DU JOUR, an extraordinarily erotic film with only a bare minimum of exposed flesh. [Rodney Welch]
Both men loved to play with bugs, and saw in the world of lower creatures not a few suggestions of the savagery in human society. [Rodney Welch].

Seems to offer an ideal subject for a traditional Compare & Contrast essay project.

Some correspondence between Lolita and Bunuel’s La Joven (1960) has been suggested, but I’d agree with RW that the greater correspondence is between Lolita and Belle du Jour, perhaps especially in terms of the public impact and notoriety of both works. I do not find either of them very erotic, however, and especially not Belle du Jour, which seems to me a highly intellectual exercise, and almost cold in its execution. Kinbote’s note to line 408 appears to me exceptionally suitable for conversion into a surrealistic movie medium.

Reviewing recent postings, I ought to correct my careless statement that The Usual Suspects was produced in 1970: it was, of course, in 1995. My apologies to Victor Soloviev for spelling his name wrong on 26/01. My thanks to Dmitri Nabokov for drawing my attention to volumes such as Les Nabokov, a genealogical essay by Jacques Ferrand, Paris 1982; La Noblesse Russe; etc. These were mentioned by Dieter Zimmer on his website, but it is disappointing that the tree is not available. I hope it is not out of place to remark that DN’s comment: VN acquired from his father, and passed on to me, the conviction that nobility was a function of a man's deeds, not of his lineage, is in itself a sentiment worthy of a genuine nobleman. At its best, I hope, an interest in genealogy is a quest for self-knowledge. Who am I? is a question everyone must have asked themselves at some point in their lives. The Bible, the Norse Sagas, and no doubt other histories, display an almost insatiable interest in lineage, as do innumerable modern Americans. In fact, genealogy is a topic of the utmost popularity on the internet, I am led to understand.

Sergei Karpukhin has just interestingly resurrected the question of the authenticity of The Song of Igor’s Campaign. VN’s “eerie doubts” about origins and authenticity tend to arise in every genealogist’s mind the further back his/her researches lead him/her. I wonder if VN ever detected the faintest suggestion of Nattochdag in his own name? One Nattochdag family researcher did tell me that there were Nattochdags also in Russia, but he didn’t say how far back this rumour stretched.

Charles