RETROSPECTIVE: Dune
Jim Mann
Dune
Directed by David Lynch
1984
Dune is a frustrating film. It is a flawed film. It is a good film that
should have been a great one. In the end, the lasting impression is one
of what might have been.
Dune starts out in brilliant fashion. In fact, the first 45 minutes or
so are the best part of the film. There are great visual images, ranging
from the third stage guild navigator arriving at the palace of the
emperor to Paul's fight with a sheilded Gurney Halleck. The narrative
technique works well, including the way background information is worked
in: sometimes by narration, sometimes by Paul learning about his
soon-to-be new home, sometimes as part of the action. Even Lynch's
technique of turning characters thoughts into narration usually works
(though he does it at times when it is not necessary).
About half way through, though, at about the time that Paul and Jessica
head out into the desert, things begin to slip. Scenes come too quickly,
without the necessary buildup. For example, the scene of Paul riding the
worm comes before we have heard that Fremen can ride worms. After the
leisurely buildup, this is quite jarring. Much of the last 45-60 minutes
of the film seems rather choppy.
The worst parts of the film are the Harkonnen sequences. In the book,
the Harkonnens are real villians. Lynch turns them into grotesque comic
book villians. The Baron flies about cackling, while his nephews prance
about, glaring, flexing their muscles, and trying to look mean. This was
apparently Lynch's favorite part of the film. This probably explains why
Dune is my favorite Lynch movie and why I've never felt compiled to
watch all of any of his other films.
Kyle MacLachlan does a reasonable job as Paul (though they never explain
where he gets the great power that allows him to keep his hair looking
like it had just been blow dried, even when he falls off a cliff and
almost gets eaten by a sand worm). He gives the character a reasonable
depth, though this is hard given a script that rushes him from one scene
to another in the final segments. I was sorry to see though that they
left out one of the most important aspect of Paul's character in the
novel. One thing that raises Paul above the usual "emperor of
everything" sort of character is his realization that this is not a good
thing, that he is being swept along by events that he wishes he could
avoid. There's no trace of this in the movie.
Alicia Witt is wonderful and spooky as Paul's younger sister Alia, who
is born with all of her mother's knowledge. Brad Dourif, who plays Piter
De Vries, does a nice job as the only interesting villian in the film.
Patrick Stewart is good if underused as Gurney Halleck, and Freddie
Jones also does a nice job as Thufir Hawat. On the downside, Sean Young
is not particularly impressive as Chani and Dean Stockwell is wooden
(though perhaps that was what was inteded) as Doctor Yueh.
The music by Toto is variable. It's quite good in the scenes where slow,
majestic music is called for. It does a great job convening the grandeur
and mystery of Dune. But it falls down badly in the action scenes. (The
decision to use a twangy electric bass guitar in some action scenes was
particularly dumb.)
The art direction great, as are most of the effects. It's nice to see
effects that don't look like those in most other films. Dune has a look
and feel unlike any other SF movie I can think of, and this is
refreshing.
The plot is intellegent, which is also refreshing. In part this is
because it follows the book rather closely in parts. In fact, the two
weak points in the plot are both where Lynch decided to stray from the
book. The wierding modules -- weapons that turn sound into power beams
-- are rather silly (though they may have been a necessary cinematic
shortcut, to try to explain the power of the both Duke Leto's and the
Fremen armies). And the rainstorm at the end was really stupid,
undercutting the intelligence of the film to that point. (Dune would be
a better film if Lynch would have cut the last minute of the film, even
if he did nothing else to enhance it.)
Overall, I like Dune. However, despite touches of brilliances, it's less
than what it could have been.
--
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jma...@REMOVETHIStransarc.com
Transarc Corporation
Technical Writer -- Encina Programming Documentation
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Marriage should be a balanced stalemate between equal adversaries. --
Amelia Peabody
Mark Lucas
In article <33AE70...@REMOVETHIStransarc.com>, Jim Mann <jmann+@REMO
VETHIStransarc.com> writes
>Dune
>Directed by David Lynch
>1984
>
>than what it could have been.
>
A pretty detailed analysis, provoking much thought. I have always had
ambiguous feelings about the film. I also like the film, quite a lot.
You have identified a number of flaws in Lynch's version which I had
overlooked.
How do you feel about the new 'Mini-Series' version currently in
production. What would you say were the three most inportant
things a new adaptation should inclued?
1) CGI worms @ flapping Ornithoptors!!
2) Red hair for Paul !
3) Film the book, ver batum.
Well I have not thought my points out seriously, but would be interested
in anyone elses thoughts
Thanks for the inciteful post Jim!
--
Mark Lucas
ma...@appleseed.demon.co.uk
Doug Tricarico
>
>In article <33AE70...@REMOVETHIStransarc.com>, Jim Mann
<jmann+@REMO
>VETHIStransarc.com> writes
>>Dune
>>Directed by David Lynch
>>1984
>>
>>Overall, I like Dune. However, despite touches of brilliances, it's
less
>>than what it could have been.
>>
>
>A pretty detailed analysis, provoking much thought. I have always had
>ambiguous feelings about the film. I also like the film, quite a lot.
>You have identified a number of flaws in Lynch's version which I had
>overlooked.
>How do you feel about the new 'Mini-Series' version currently in
>production. What would you say were the three most inportant
>things a new adaptation should inclued?
>
>1) CGI worms @ flapping Ornithoptors!!
>2) Red hair for Paul !
>3) Film the book, ver batum.
>
>Well I have not thought my points out seriously, but would be
interested
>in anyone elses thoughts
>
>Thanks for the inciteful post Jim!
>--
>Mark Lucas
>ma...@appleseed.demon.co.uk
The single most important thing to include in any version of DUNE would
be a director who understands the medium of film.
The narration in Lynch's DUNE is so completely unnecessary as to be
insulting and tedious. A picture says a thousand words -- let it.
Lynch's DUNE looks great, but nice sets and costumes can't help a bad
script or ham-handed direction.
I'd much rather they give up on trying to film this and bring some
other SF classic to the screen.
Doug
Matt Martinez
Doug Tricarico wrote:
>
> I'd much rather they give up on trying to film this and bring some
> other SF classic to the screen.
>
Why? It is a filmable story (albeit not *easily* filmable, but filmable
nonetheless). I think it is a story which should be introduced to the
poor unfortunates who stayed away from the book just because the cover
made it look boring or something stupid like that. It's a great story.
--
Matt
"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed.
The ability to criticize Star Wars is insignificant next to power of the
Fans"
-Brandon David Short
(-o-)