David Lynch’s Dune (1984) Film Review
Now, I know I’m not the only one to have ever unironically uttered the phrase, “the book was better” when referring to the quality of a film. I admit that this mentality ruined quite a few movies for me in my teens and pre-teens. I even held this pretention into my early twenties, but I’ve heard people much older than I am now sharing that same sentiment. For me, the catalyst that changed this was an experience I had in college where other students directed and acted in some one-act plays I had written. It was a humbling and flattering experience to see my peers on stage sharing their interpretations of the words that I had written. But the biggest thing that I took from this was the artistry of interpretation. My classmates had read and acted out my words in a way that I hadn’t anticipated, but by doing so, they made it their own.
Now, if you’re like me, you also enjoy film adaptations of movies. There’s something intriguing about a team of people adding audio/visual elements to something that previously had only existed on page and in my mind’s eye. I want to know what the main character looks like, how that monster moves, how that beautiful landscape really looks spread out in front of me. But there will always be a bit of tension when it comes to adapting novels into visual media as everyone’s experience with the text will be a very personal thing built on a number of elusive experiences, biases, and prejudices. In other words, you can’t please everyone. I wouldn’t claim that I’m immune to these tendencies, but I am at least aware of them, and that helps me overcome them from time-to-time.
This all being said, I intentionally put myself into this position when I watched David Lynch’s 1984 Dune. Obviously, my impression of this movie is going to be permanently tied to my experiences shortly before and after it. I had finished the novel just a couple days before watching the movie, and I plan on watching the new adaptation when it comes out, roughly a month after I had first seen the earlier version. All that being said, I will do my best to judge this movie on its own merits.
Honestly, though, I think that this only really takes away from my perception of the movie. I try to imagine how I would have felt watching this movie without having read the book first. And the main thought that comes to mind is confusion. It seems rushed, jam-packed with information, and almost stilted in its language. This of course is all ignoring the painfully dated visual effects. Sure, the costuming is fantastic. Some of the sets are so gorgeous that I forget that they were done with little to no computer generated special effects. But removed from the context of the book, it just feels like all the dustiness of Shakespeare but with the corniness of sci-fi. I would have sat through it without having read the book, but I probably wouldn’t have cared for it much.
That being said, I can’t pretend that I didn’t have this context going in. With Herbert’s novel in mind, Lynch’s adaptation is both a triumph and a disappointment at the same time. For one, no one is arguing that the novel is a light read by any stretch. The fact that Lynch decided to try to depict this whole story in only 2 hours 17 minutes seems wild, but he pulls it off. He hits just about every major story beat, changing very little from the surface level content of the novel. Even the stilted language seems like a choice to remain loyal to the source material, transforming the performances from amateurish to enlightened.
Of course, this leads me to the cliched criticisms, though: the changes. I think what bothered me was how inconsequential and random some of the changes were. The way the ‘weirding ways’ were depicted as sound weapons, for example, was just a strange choice to me. It seems like an intentional choice that in no way could have been easier to pull off than just depicting Paul as some preternatural military leader and trainer as he is in the books. Instead, we have this strange technology which isn’t really explained how it works and how Paul was able to get it to the Fremen. The whole choice just seemed weird as it didn’t add anything to the story, and I can’t see how it would have made filming any easier either.
The biggest shortcoming in my eyes, though, comes from the overall tone of the story. MacLachlan’s Paul almost feels like a Mary Sue, an uncomplicated, infallible, supernatural Messiah figure. It’s interesting as that must be how the Fremen all see him. But in Herbert’s original novel, we see a different side of Paul Atreides. We see a man conflicted by what he must do to secure a future for his adopted people and revenge for his fallen friends and family. He is a man haunted by the sins he has yet to commit, the atrocities done in his name. Dune the novel is about the horrors of war, the dangers of religious zealotry, and the importance of global climate policy. Dune the movie has none of that. What we’re left with instead is a feel-good action movie that feels hollow by comparison. Lynch stays meticulously close to the letter of the source material (for the most part) while completely dropping the spirit of it.
Now this all probably sounds harsh. I did not hate the movie by any stretch of the imagination; I actually enjoyed it. I would recommend watching it for any Dune fan. Just get comfortable, grab some popcorn, and enjoy seeing young Kyle MacLachlan, Patrick Stewart, and Sting play acting as some of your favorite characters. But don’t turn on this movie expecting to feel anything noteworthy.