Just got the special edition Dune (1984) on an R2 DVD. The second disc has all the behind the scenes and documentaries. Most of the people being interviewed were either cast members (e.g. Kyle MacLachlan) or memebrs of the production staff.
And then there’s Harlan Ellison.
Why?
I checked the IMDB and he wasn’t part of the crew or cast. Other than being an overbearing sci-fi (yes, I said sci-fi) writer, I can think of no other reason for him to be on it.
I second the opinion that Harlan is not really sf writer. He is more of a magical-realist, which in the sf field would put him alongside the likes of Ray Bradbury and Theodore Sturgeon, as opposed to, say, Clarke and Heinlein.
(It is true, however, that he has authored a number of sf scripts, such as for Star Trek and Babylon 5.)
Ellison prefers the term Fantasist (as in fantasy) instead of Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction, SF, or Sci Fi writer. One of his favorite writers is Jorge Luis Borges, who is most accurately described as a Magical Realist, or Fantasist also.
His work does tend to use some of the most popular motifs from the genre, such as technology, space/time travel, etc., some of the reasons he gives is that his work defies specific categorization, he desists from writing in a science plot-driven way, and that his work is more based upon the concept of a fantastical situation or theme.
People magazine reported an incident where he was invited to a late-night talk show, where, upon being introduced as a Sci-Fi writer, he left the studio. Being as he was the only guest that evening, the hosts were left to discuss his work without him.
His work in short-story, teleplay, and opinion and non-fiction have been awarded the Hugo and the Nebula, the most prestigious awards in Science-Fiction, but these awards have also been nominated and awarded to writers and artists whose work is not limited to that genre also.
Dune , on original release was severely savaged by movie critics. Ellison’s review in the Los Angeles Times was one of the few favorable reviews to come out at that time. I often read or listen to movie reviews, but with a few exceptions, most critics I’ve encountered write based upon their initial reaction and don’t seem to consider the change of heart that time or repeated viewings may create. For instance, The Wizard of Oz , now considered a modern classic, was called a “stinkeroo” by the New Yorker magazine. Harlan Ellison’s review of Dune was much more favorable, and appreciated the way the director Lynch captured the tone and dramatic flow of a story that was epic. In addition, he appreciated the edgy visual style characteristic of Lynch.
If anyone has ever read the essay Modern Art and the Plight of the Public by Leo Steinberg, this is an example of a work of modern art that is so unlike other art of its time that in evokes a hostile response, even from those who would seem most likely appreciate it. I don’t have a copy of Dune, but Ellison’s review, and his stature and devoted fan base would probably have made his addition attractive to the package.