DUNE (1984)

 

Arrow Video has released a new Blu-ray special edition of the notorious 1984 film adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel DUNE. That is the impetus for this post. 

There are plenty of people who hate DUNE. Most folks consider it to be too weird, or incomprehensible. (Ironically, hardcore fans of DUNE's director, David Lynch, consider the film too mainstream.) The paperback version of DUNE that I own runs over 800 pages. Frank Herbert's epic story is complex and not an easy read. Herbert presents a number of ideas and concepts that are near-impossible to translate into a visual form. 

DUNE, the novel, is also about as far away from the mainstream as you can get. It is not a simple "good guys vs. bad guys in outer space" story. The lead character of DUNE, Paul Atreides, is decidedly not Luke Skywalker (if anything, he's more like Anakin Skywalker). 

Nevertheless, Universal Pictures and executive producer Dino De Laurentiis felt that they had a Star Wars-type property on their hands, a property that could bring in tons of money through merchandising and sequels. A massive amount of money was poured into the project, and a promising young filmmaker named David Lynch was hired to write and direct. The movie was given a huge publicity campaign before its release during the Christmas holiday season of 1984. 

The result is well known--the film was looked upon as a major disappointment financially and critically, and it is still considered as such today. 

Like most famous flops, the '84 DUNE does have a small core of defenders. I certainly don't think it's an underrated masterpiece, but I've grown to appreciate some of its elements over the years. 

I didn't see DUNE during its original theatrical release. I read the novel before I saw the movie as a VHS rental. I could immediately see why it flopped. 

The '84 DUNE had a torturous production history (which I won't get into here). The version of the film that was released was not what either Universal, the De Laurentiis family, or David Lynch wanted. Some have said that DUNE is a 137-minute trailer for a bigger film, which is a very perceptive description. Trying to fit such a large canvas as DUNE into a two-hour running time does not do the story justice. The theatrical release version of the film does not have enough space to adequately inform the audience about what is going on. 

Universal promoted DUNE as a big-budget mainstream spectacular, but most of the people they were trying to sell the film to had never read the novel, and thus they were hopelessly lost when seeing it. (Even those who have read the novel, such as myself, get confused at times while watching DUNE.) 

None of the characters in the film are the types that will connect with a regular audience. Even the main hero, Paul, as played by Kyle MacLachlan, comes off as stiff and distant. (This was MacLachlan's first movie role, but it's not his fault, due to the circumstances and the type of story being told.) Almost every single line of dialogue in DUNE is expository--people don't have real conversations here. That doesn't help an audience in trying to get to know the characters. 

A number of these characters are introduced, and they are seemingly set up for an important role to play--but then they disappear for large stretches of the film, or they get killed off rather quickly. The villains of the piece, the Harkonnens and their associates, are presented in such an over the top manner that they become silly instead of a viable threat. The '84 DUNE also has no humor whatsoever (although there are plenty of unintentionally funny moments). 

A few years after its theatrical release, Universal put together a extended cut of DUNE for television. This version runs about three hours, and it was released on DVD in 2005. This is not the definitive version of the film--David Lynch refused to have anything to do with it, and this cut has plenty of problems of its own. To this day, rumors abound over a four hour-plus cut that supposedly was David Lynch's "real" version of the film (producer Raffaella De Laurentiis denies that any such edit of DUNE exists). Lynch now refuses to even discuss DUNE, and we will never truly know what the 1984 DUNE might have been. 

The more I saw of DUNE over the years, the more I started to look at it from a different angle (especially after I was able to see it in widescreen). It is a strange film, to be sure, and it is not a satisfying adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel. 

I do feel, though, that the weirdness of Lynch's DUNE is one of its stronger aspects. This is a real science-fiction film--not a cop movie, Western, or buddy story set in outer space or in the future. Science fiction isn't supposed to normal. The '84 DUNE truly has an alien and unique visual aspect to it. 

One of the reasons DUNE has such a notable look, I think, is that it was not filmed at Pinewood or Elstree in England, as many big-budget genre films were in the 1980s. It was filmed in Mexico, and the production did not use Industrial Light & Magic for any of the FX work. Most science-fiction movies made since the first Star Wars trilogy have a generic look & style to them (and that has carried on to the many comic book films made now). The '84 DUNE, for better or worse, stands out. 

The production design, special effects, and costumes for DUNE are excellent, as is the cinematography of Freddie Francis (one of David Lynch's greatest collaborators and steadfast supporters). The overall look of DUNE has always fascinated me. The visual aspects of any film are always important to me--it's why I love the original STAR WARS and Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS so much. (METROPOLIS and the '84 DUNE actually have a lot in common.) 

DUNE also has one of the best cast ensembles ever. You may not understand who the characters are, or what they are doing, but the actors hold your attention. 

The 1984 DUNE may be what many have called a fascinating failure, but I find it to be far more watchable than a number of more popular genre films made around the same time. (It does have to be said that the author of this blog is a bit weird himself.) 

In 2000 the Sci-Fi Channel presented a TV miniseries adaptation of DUNE. This version had the advantage of a far longer running time and a more expansive script--but I felt that the cast and the production design were underwhelming (as a matter of fact I barely remember anything about it). If you could somehow merge the script and the running time of the Sci-Fi Channel DUNE with the cast & technical crew of the 1984 DUNE, you might have something. 

But then again, you might not. Can any movie or TV production come anywhere near to properly adapting Frank Herbert's elephantine novel?? A lot of hopes are being pinned on Denis Villeneuve's version of DUNE, which is supposed to be released soon. Villeneuve is planning on a multi-film approach to the story, which may be best. 

If you are someone who believes that MEN IN BLACK is a classic science-fiction film, you are not going to like the 1984 DUNE. If however, you are someone that is willing to get off the mainstream train every once in a while, and is willing to experience serious science-fiction, you might find that DUNE isn't the horrible bomb that so many have labeled it to be.