Posted on 12/30/2024 6:07:40 AM PST by Red Badger
Squeezing Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel into a two-hour movie was always doomed to misfire.
(Image credit: Universal Pictures)
Frank Herbert's sprawling sci-fi novel was never likely to be tamed in the space of a single movie. Now that "Dune: Part Two" has completed Denis Villeneuve's spice odyssey in box-office smashing style (until the director gets round to making "Dune: Messiah", at least), it's more obvious than ever that David Lynch's 1984, single-film adaptation of a crown jewel of genre literature was always as doomed as poor Leto Atreides. Nonetheless, four decades later the director's version of "Dune" remains an intriguing, if seriously weird, misfire.
In a parallel universe, Lynch might have made "Return of the Jedi" instead. The director, then the toast of Hollywood thanks to his work on the Oscar-nominated "The Elephant Man", ultimately turned down George Lucas's offer of a trip to a galaxy far, far away. But it wasn't long before he was hitching another ride into outer space, bankrolled by eccentric "Flash Gordon" producer (and subject of many a Hollywood anecdote) Dino De Laurentiis.
Like "Flash Gordon", "The Black Hole", "Krull" and numerous other sci-fi/fantasy movies of the era, "Dune" 1984 was at the vanguard of Hollywood's effort to cash in on the phenomenal success of "Star Wars". There's a degree of irony, then, that it's Villeneuve's movies that take more inspiration from Lucas's beloved trilogy, effectively bringing things full circle after "Star Wars" borrowed liberally from Herbert's desert planet setting and "kid with a messianic destiny" plot.
(Image credit: Universal Pictures)
Where Villeneuve doubled down on Lucas's gritty, used aesthetic to create a believable space-faring universe — a stylistic choice that's become the blueprint everywhere from "Alien" to "Rebel Moon" — Lynch's more fantastical film embraces the absurd. With their implausibly ornate eyebrows, the mentats (human computers) look like something out of a Terry Gilliam movie, while the costumes lean towards the elaborate — there's no question Lynch's Arrakis exists in a similar orbit to "Flash Gordon"'s Mongo.
The portrayal of the tyrannical Harkonnens is particularly egregious, their ludicrous bright orange hair and penchant for the theatrical ensuring they never convince as the villains of the piece.
Kenneth McMillan effectively plays the grotesque patriarch Baron Vladimir for laughs, creating a jarring contrast with the character's casual cruelty. Sting, meanwhile, brings plenty of rock star energy to the psychotic heir apparent Feyd-Rautha, but — largely thanks to his bizarre, highly-memeable choice of underwear — he's no Darth Vader. Neither can compete with Villeneuve's chilling, hairless reimagining of the most despised family on Arrakis — Stellan Skarsgård (as the Baron) and Austin Butler (as Feyd-Rautha) are both as threatening as they are charismatic.
It's in the storytelling department, however, that "Dune" 1984 fares particularly badly in comparison to its 21st-century usurper.
Frank Herbert's original novel — a story so dense with lore that it comes with its own glossary — is harder to adapt than most, and it's worth noting that both Lynch and Villeneuve's retellings are liable to leave "Dune" newbies a tad confused. Indeed, Villeneuve's much-lauded duology arguably fails to convey why the spice/melange found on Arrakis is such an intergalactic big deal. The Navigators, mutated humans whose excessive spice use gives them the vision to steer starships through folded space, are barely a footnote.
(Image credit: Universal Pictures)
But let's not pretend that the expanded presence of Navigators — imagined as freaky, fish-like puppets by ET designer Carlo Rambaldi — gives Lynch's movie a free pass. Herbert's original novel makes extensive use of its characters' internal monologues, but this unashamedly literary device feels incredibly clunky when Kyle MacLachlan (Paul), Francesca Annis (Lady Jessica), and other members of the cast dump their thoughts via voiceover. The 1984 film's few female characters are also woefully underserved, with Paul's Fremen love interest Chani ("Blade Runner"'s Sean Young), in particular, having little more to do than simper over the wannabe savior of Arrakis.
In contrast, most of the liberties Villeneuve's movies take with the original text — particularly regarding Chani and Paul's mum, Jessica — actively enhance the story. For Villeneuve, newly anointed Reverend Mother Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) is the biggest champion of her son's rise to power, while Chani (Zendaya) becomes the one cynical, dissenting voice among the Fremen. Jessica's unborn telepathic daughter, Alia, is a much more disconcerting presence than the precocious kid in Lynch's movie, and the manipulative Bene Gesserit are given some deserved time in the spotlight as cosmic string-pullers-in-chief.
Ultimately, however, the biggest difference between the two adaptations is Villeneuve's luxury to tell Herbert's story over five hours. Running at a mere 130 minutes, the 1984 movie is always in a rush, particularly in the final act where Paul's rise to his prophesized destiny as Kwisatz Haderach proceeds at disconcertingly breakneck speed.
Although Lynch's film has passed into Hollywood infamy, it gets plenty of things right. The stillsuits, thumpers, and glowing blue eyes of the desert-dwelling Fremen are remarkably similar to what Villeneuve would visualize decades later, while the painstakingly rotoscoped 1984 vintage combat shields are a wonderful melange of "Minecraft" and "Tron". The VFX used to create gargantuan sandworms is also impressive for the era, and you can forgive the lack of ornithopters because, well, creating convincing dragonfly-style wings in the pre-CG era would have been borderline impossible, even for George Lucas's Industrial Light & Magic. The catchy score, from rock band Toto, provides plenty of earworms to complement the sandworms.
And in Lynch's defense, the director was famously denied final cut on the movie. Eager to keep things brief, the producers reportedly tore pages out of the script as he worked, and Lynch has since said, "I'm proud of everything [I've made] — except 'Dune'." But even now that Villeneuve's films, like Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings", become the definitive screen version of a classic genre novel, Lynch's noble, if flawed, effort to translate a sci-fi titan to the big screen doesn't deserve to be buried in the sand.
Dune 1984 is available to stream on Max in the U.S. and MGM Plus in the U.K.
as a Frank Herbert Dune fan, i thought the original Dune movie brilliantly captured the mood of the novels, and was amazed that Lynch managed to extract the essentials of such a complex story in a stylish and relatively coherent movie, especially since CGI hadn’t taken over the entire movie world yet ... i still consider that movie to be a science fiction classic ...
i just finished watching part 1 of the new two part remake. i enjoyed the part 1 and its CGI depiction of the Dune worlds, i really didn’t see anything new or wonderfully different in the story telling from the original movie. nonetheless, i realized that the basic story was much easier to follow for those who had not first read the novels ...
I read the books and still could barely follow along with the 1984 version. Just really weird. And I hated the internal thought monologues throughout the movie.
The ‘though monologues’ were the musings of Princess Irulan, the Emperor’s daughter, who became a historian and biographer of Paul ‘Muad’Dib’ Atreides. They begin nearly every chapter of Dune, as a preview of sorts, into the life and times of Paul and later as Emperor................
Fantastic movie!
I thought Sean Young needed help getting in and out of that Still-Suit and I was just the assistant for the job.
I agree the remake is so boring, I still haven’t finished part 2. The 1984 one stayed much closer to the books.
The Dune book series is my favorite ever.
Lynch’s movies and TV series have always been somewhat of a fever dream.
He’s an interesting and talented artist.
Sometimes stories need to be told in a less abstract way to be the most effective they can be.
The modern version of Dune is still fairly abstract, but there is enough information given to the audience for the story to at least make sense.
Whether a story is told in a concrete, real-world way or is very abstract is not as important, in my opinion, as whether the story universe it is contained in follows its own rules.
In other words, a perfect hero with no weaknesses or flaws is boring. Superman must have his kryptonite and his Lois Lane. There has to be at least the possibility of failure for his success to be meaningful.
Some of Christopher Nolan’s movies struggle in a similar way as Lynch’s. But it’s not from their being surreal. It’s due to the complexity of the story elements. Some of his films need several viewings to be understood. At least by mere mortals.
For Lynch, his movies cannot be fully understood because he does not fully understand his own art. And that’s how he likes it. He does not explain his art for this reason. It’s meaning is ultimately shaped by the audience.
Sting is no actor.
A good singer but acting...meh!
In the movie “The Death Of Stalin”, the director felt he had to remove some of Gen Zhukovs actual medals because he felt it made him more unbelievable!
I understand that, but they were extremely distracting to the scenes and dialog. The whole movie is just weird! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.