Noah's Remark: Dune is the Best and Worst Movie I've Ever Seen

Provided

By Noah Dawson

I don't often do movie reviews. In fact, while I usually write about local politics, movie reviews are another step outside of my wheelhouse considering the fact that I tend to prefer novels and TV shows as storytelling mediums. What few movies I do watch are often the so-bad-it's-good type, such as The Room. But, with the fact that one of my favorite books is Dune, the recent adaptation by Denis Villeneuve was enough to get me to the movie theater to see it in Imax. Twice. (Another factor which drew me in was my appreciation for Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049, which is half of my 4K Blu-ray collection. The other half, of course, is the final cut version of the original Blade Runner.) Additionally, in addition to giving Dune another reread recently, I finally accomplished another long-delayed task. I watched David Lynch's 1984 adaptation of Dune. So, for this special Thanksgiving edition of my column, I wanted to spend some time talking about why I love the original novel, why I love Villeneuve's adaptation, and why Lynch's adaptation is among the worst movies I've ever been subjected to. (As a warning, there are spoilers for all three works below. I've tried to keep them to a minimum, but, if you want to avoid all spoilers, here's a very brief rundown of my thoughts:The original novel is a must read, though I'll admit the prose isn't the most conventional. I don't think it is bad, but it does take a bit of getting used to. Villeneuve's adaptation that came out this year is amazing. The only real complaint I have is that it only covers about half of the book and part two is a couple of years away. Lynch's adaptation is bad.)

First thing first: What is Dune and why do I love it?

Dune, written by Frank Herbert, is the first novel in a series of novels set in the far future of humanity. It's a dense and philosophical work brimming with nuanced explorations into a myriad of complicated themes. While on the surface it is an epic space opera, it has far more to it than many other tales within the genre. And, even as an epic space opera, it is an impressive feat, given how young the genre was at the time it was written. The story is complex, with factions and subplots to rival A Song of Ice and Fire. But, at its core, one theme stands out among the rest: Dune is a warning against trusting charismatic leaders. It accomplishes this by setting up then completely subverting the chosen-one hero's journey trope. This makes the story especially relevant today. Not only do politics seem more divisive and partisan than usual, but it seems people across the political spectrum are becoming far too comfortable giving up their beliefs to follow individual politicians. It's also worth reiterating that Dune is only the first book in the series. The other books in the series written by Frank Herbert are also all worth reading. The second book, in fact, does even more to convey the central theme of the story than the first book.

So, how does Villeneuve's new adaptation live up to the book? As I've already mentioned, I loved it. Unfortunately, its theatrical run has already ended, or else this would be a call to go watch it in Imax. Still, it isn't perfect. There were some pacing choices I'm not sure I agreed with. Some of my favorite plot points didn't make it into the movie. And, as it was technically only "Dune: Part One," we will have to wait until 2023 to see the rest of the novel's story adapted. But, even with that criticism aside, I find myself at odds with one of the most common criticisms I've seen of the movie: how it ends. Without getting too much into the plot, the movie ends with a duel involving the main character. As I've mentioned to earlier, with one of the key themes of the story being a subversion of the chosen one hero trope, the main character is not the hero of the story. In fact, at this point in the story, he has even already realized that, if he lives, he will become a despotic ruler spilling blood across the known universe. This is the crux of the conflict in the scene: He can choose to lose and prevent the horrors he knows he will cause, or he can give into what the novel calls his "terrible purpose." In order to make it clear that the conflict in the scene is the main character's internal conflict, not the literal physical conflict, the movie makes it clear very early in the fight that the main character can easily win. And, when he does win, it's not because of some clever fighting tactic. It's not a moment akin to Luke "using the force" at the end of the first Star Wars. The final blow is very subdued. Compare this with any of the other intensely choreographed fight scenes at other points in the movie and it's clear that the direction in this final duel was intentional.

Meanwhile, in Lynch's adaptation abomination, this scene is cut. In fact, not only is the scene cut, but the central theme about not trusting charismatic leaders is absent. It's not just pushed to the background either. Lynch's adaptation takes a subversion of the chosen-one hero's journey and turns it back into the very thing it was meant to subvert. And, even if there were any questions as to this, the movie answers them in a narration during the final scene, confirming the main character will "bring peace" and "bring love" where there had been war and hatred. What's especially frustrating is how easily this could have been mitigated. Simply changing the narration at the end could have implied the impending horrors. It may not have made up for all of the other missed opportunities to allude to the themes of the book, but it would have significantly improved the movie. Now, I can forgive a film for not being a perfectly accurate recreation of the source material. In fact, though it condenses a lot, most of the central story beats are still there. Blade Runner is a good example of a great adaptation that doesn't perfectly recreate the source material. Though it is nominally based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," the two plots share very few likenesses. Still, Blade Runner is a great movie. I can even forgive an adaptation not perfectly conveying the same themes as the source material. Again, Blade Runner is a relevant comparison. While it shares themes of the meaning of being human with its source material, the two works don't line up one to one. Unfortunately, Lynch's Dune doesn't just fail to adapt the themes of Dune. It also fails to say much of anything itself. Even the various weird elements one expects from a David Lynch film don't seem to serve a deeper message. In fact, it seems at times like a self-parody of Lynch's characteristic style. The one area where the movie does occasionally do something right are the visual effects, though not all visual effects in the movie are created equal. While I can forgive some of the effects due to the age of the movie, there are some that are just bad. And, even the better done effects aren't worth watching the whole movie. It's no 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's not even Star Trek: The Motion Picture's attempt at ripping of 2001. Sure, some of the effects were technically impressive, but that's not enough to make them great. And, again, there are some shots that are just bad. One that stands out in particular is the arrival of a spaceship to the main planet of the story, Arrakis. While is it preceded by a very strange scene showing a navigator planning the trip, the actual visual of the ship arriving in orbit is a background of the planet from space with the ship fading in over the shot of the planet. Lynch has apparently defended this lazy choice by saying he didn't want it to look like anything else. That's a totally understandable position to have, especially with space travel scenes from Star Trek and Star Wars recent memory. But that does nothing to excuse basically giving up. In fact, Villeneuve's version seems to take a similar approach by avoiding the visual cliches of other space epics. But, without giving too much away, it manages to do so in a way that captivates a sense of wonder and mystery. Villeneuve has something to say with his unique approach. Contrast this with Lynch, who, while creating a unique movie, failed to say much of anything. (It is worth noting that I perhaps shouldn't put all of the blame on Lynch, as he was not given total artistic freedom or the final cut of the movie. Still, it's hard not to give him some blame.)

One last note about both versions: As someone who was familiar with the source material before seeing both movies, I have a hard time speaking to how hard it is to grasp the plots of either movie. I will mention one of my favorite lines from any movie review ever though, from The New York Times review of David Lynch's adaptation: "Several of the characters in Dune are psychic, which puts them in the unique position of being able to understand what goes on in the movie." With the complex nature of the plot, it is understandable that some might be confused after seeing either movie. If you want some more background information about the story, I do encourage checking out the YouTube channel "Quinn's Ideas." Quinn's channel is full of great content about many science fiction and fantasy series, and Dune is at the center of much of the content. He's recently made some shorter videos introducing some of the planets, factions, and characters in Dune.

At the end of the day, Villeneuve's "Dune: Part One" is one of the best movies I've ever seen, while Lynch's "Dune" is among the worst. I would even go as far as saying that Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" has far more artistic merit than David Lynch's "Dune." (I'm honestly not sure if that's a joke or not.) Now, does anyone know where I can watch the two Sci-Fi channel miniseries adaptations?