I’ll go with you on this to a point. Many moons ago when I saw the movie in theatres it was a disjointed mess and I was pretty disappointed because I was expecting an interesting sci-fi movie, not a visual tone poem. It was amusing later that year when Playboy’s film year in review chose “Greatest cinematic criminal” as “Everyone involved in the making of Dune”.
In hindsight, it was pretty well nigh unfilmable as a single movie, but the images do stay with you even after 25 years. I’m not sure whether this (in and of itself) is enough to rescue it as a work of cinematic art as some parts of it (esp some of the acting) was almost Ed Wood level bad.
I really don’t know who they credited with the film back then. It was before I had a VCR. It looks like what you’re talking about is the same director, but different names on the release. When I saw it years later there were additions to the film that had been missing the first time. I do know they announced it was edited for television to fit it in the time slot allotted.
You’re right that the water of life theme got compressed almost to nothing-ness in the film - I think to about 3 seconds.
Another casualty was the Feyd character, and I’m not just talking about Sting’s portrayal of him. A young Lawrence Olivier couldn’t have done anything with the character as written - I was clueless as to his relevance on watching the film, he seemed just like another Harkonnen thug. His role as the possible Kwizats Hadderach seemed completely submerged.
I thought the acting was pretty solid tbh, as an ensemble piece. Some poor turns - Jurgen Prochnow and Everett McGill were a bit wooden. Kyle Maclachlan though, was outstanding IMO.
I have to disagree, possibly he had an unplayable role, or the scripting was poor, or whatever, but Kyle MacLachlan’s portrayal of Paul Atreides did not do much for me with respect to bringing the character to life.
“Alan Smithee” was a pseudonym used by directors who did not want their names associated with a film they felt did not reflect their artistic vision.
In order to promote and preserve the status of directors as the primary “authors” of films, the DGA (the professional film directors’ union) did not normally allow directors to go uncredited or use pseudonyms of their choice. They strictly regulated the use of the “Alan Smithee” credit, which served as sort of an alarm signal to insiders without drawing undue attention to itself among the general public. Of course, these days everyone’s an insider, and Smithee is no longer as useful as he was.
Yanno, I’d completely forgotten that about Feyd; it’s been a couple of decades since I last read Dune. Or was he the one that a daughter of Leto and Jessica was supposed to marry to produce a child who would be the Kwisatz Hadderach? There was a brief mention of that at the beginning of the film when Jessica’s being reamed by the Mother Superior for having a son rather than a daughter, then that too evaporated.
I think they filmed the wrong novel. Paul’s fall from power is more filmic than his rise involving so much cultural tension. Presenting him as the Messiah whose mission gradually gets away from him and who comes to realise the paradox that the best Messiah is a dead Messiah or else even despite himself he comes to sap others of their initiative (a literal version of “If you meet the Buddha on the Way, kill him”) has more ‘going on’ and more personal interaction. In that respect it would conform to the classic definition of Tragedy: Fall of a great man. But cinema does not like tragedy, it likes to end on an upbeat, not with a Messiah sacrificing himself to free his followers from their own awe of him (an awe he has done everything to encourage, it is true).
I wish Frank Herbert had left it at the Trilogy. The next three and the recycling characters just become ‘silly’ and confusing after a while. The same is true of Asimov’s ‘Galactic Empire’ novels, perhaps worse since they are bound to such a dated original trilogy.
I know, right? Imagine the sublimity that might have resulted if he hadn’t had to fight tooth and nail for everything he DID accomplish? Where the film fails, I think, is where the studio’s attempts at conventionality intrude upon Lynch’s hermetic universe. It’s the chimera that doesn’t work; if it had been whole hog one way or the other it could only have been better for it.
I first saw this movie when I was 8 years old and really couldn’t follow it. I saw it again as a teenager and didn’t have a hard time figuring it out what was going on. Plus, the soundtrack was awesome. I think Dune is a pretty good movie.
Likewise. Every scene has an incredible atmosphere, and it always feels like something really interesting is going on, but it’s never quite clear what. Then you have all these voice overs making foreboding comments whose context is never made entirely clear. It feels like there’s huge gaps between everything that happens. It’s like a two hour trailer for the most kick-ass 16 hour sci-fi movie ever made.
I’ve never read the book. I saw the movie when it first came out (I was in elementary school) and loved it and had no trouble whatsoever understanding it. They may have left out tons of background material from the book, but nothing that they left out is essential to understanding the plot as it exist on screen, and the plot in the film is self consistent and makes sense. I recently rewatched it on cable just this week and found it almost as good despite the small screen and dated effects.
I suspect that most people who don’t like it are disappointed in it as an adaption and not as much on it’s own merits. I don’t get people who thought it was confusing or non sensical - I understood it fine as a child and without having read the book for background. And it certainly makes a hell of a whole lot more sense than his other movies
Agree to a point. I agree that it makes far more sense as movie if you had NOT read the book. The book has a very different structure, and the movie and it are on entirely different wavelengths and are virtually telling different stories.
**It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of Safu that thoughts acquire speed,
the lips acquire stains the stains become a warning.
Personally, I think the aesthetics suck. And that’s not in comparison with the book, just as-is. I’m heartily sick of grimy world-encomapassing cities like Geidi Prime, unsubtle OTT villains like the Baron, and mindless unquestioning fanatics like the Fremen are depicted. That and the choice of some sort of neo-Baroque as the design aesthetic for machines, women’s clothing and furnishings. I thought it passé when the movie first came out, and even more so now. “Steampunk”, my ass.
I liked the actual sandworms, the sandcrawler design, and the stillsuit’s design, but that wasn’t enough to lift it past McClachlan’s shitty acting as Paul - all clench-jawed eanestness, no nuance. That, the ridiculous Mentat look, heartplugs, midgets, weird bug-juice, metal teethed witches…
Hideous, hideous, hideous movie (that was fairly atmospheric, still beaten by Dark City which has atmosphere and plot, but i digress…).
There’s a point where directors/studios/whoever should back the fuck off when they realize that they can’t make a movie that’s even remotely similar to a book. The SciFi miniseries, actually, came pretty close.
And movies, when made with real faith for the creative spirit and integrity of the book they’re using as source material, can be pretty damn awesome*. Egotistical jackasses take a book, like, say … (just as a total hypothetical… ahem) a classic of military adventure with the author seriously suggesting that military service was noble, and then turn it into a satire of fascism. There’s a certain point, and let’s call it the Farship Bloopers Point, where a director should be less of a dick and simply get an all new script. Or, fuck, just do what Twain’s “mature” artists do and steal a lot change the title. (Mr. Jordan, please meet Mr. Herbert, I’m sure you’re familiar with his work).
*Faults and all, the LotR trilogy was pretty well done. And Fight Club was probably the only movie I’ve ever seen that was pretty much faithful to the core of the source material and actually managed to significantly improve on a decent book. “Heh. Flashback humor.”
Just wanted to state for the record that Kyle MacLachlan is quite possibly the worst, most wooden, least talented actor to be on screen since Robert Evans (remember The Sun Also Rises? What a disaster!)
Also, I agree with Mr. Dibble (and others) that the look of the film is crap. Everything about the movie is crap.
