Dune, part one 2021

[cinemabon]

Dune, part one (2021)
Directed by Denis Villeneuve
Cinematography – Greig Fraser (Rogue One)
Score – Hans Zimmer

SPOILER ALERT, mostly for those who’ve never read the novel. If you’ve read the novel or saw the 1984 film… well, it’s more of the same only with better special effects and less time spent on minor characters.

Dune, part one (2021) is a sprawling adaptation of the 1965 Frank Herbert novel that revolves around religious beliefs, which parallel those of the Islam religion, especially certain terms that Herbert borrowed like Jihad and the name of the principal character, Muhai’dib (which sounds similar to Muhammad) – the name that Paul Atreides (Ah-tray-dees) takes when he becomes leader of the Fremen; and even the desert setting (aka, the Middle East). But I digress… let’s start at the beginning; not of the novel; or the 1984 film; but the current film project released today.

The opening is rather confusing, I would think, for most audiences to grasp. There is a brief narrative voice-over summary delivered by Chani – a Fremen woman who later plays an important role in her relationship to Paul. She explains something of the desert planet Arakis (Dune), of the Harkonnen (enemies of the Atreides), and the spice mélange, responsible for inter-dimensional space transport. Then we jump to the Atreides home world, which is a water world (sharp contrast). The Emperor’s messengers have arrived with a new assignment – take over the spice mining operations on Arakis; as the Emperor Shaddam has ordered the Baron Harkonnen out. Not wishing to start a war, Duke Leto Atreides obeys and prepares to transfer his family to Arakis, a desert world.

The focus of both the novel, and this film, quickly changes to the Duke’s son, Paul. Unlike the novel or the 1984 film that makes an attempt to air out background or minor characters, we don’t know why the Emperor’s Bene-Gesserit Mother has dropped in to visit. The Duke’s wife, Jessica, with her worried face telegraphs that she knows why and later we learn it is because she’s kept her son’s identity hidden until now. Paul is special and in spite of his military training, the boy has certain qualities that make him stand out, such as using a commanding voice and vivid dreams of Arakis.

All of the novel’s main characters are here but in extremely truncated roles, even smaller than they were in the previous 1984 film. The transfer to the planet and the ultimate demise of House Atreides happen in rapid fashion with the main emphasis falling on the story about Paul and little else. This also differs from the 1984 film in that, all of the “little intrigue scenes” with Gurney, Duncan, Thufir, Raban, Dr. Kynes, Mapes, the Emperor, the Baron, and other minor characters are basically reduced to a few lines of dialogue or nonexistent. It’s every character-building detail you know and love about the novel thrown away as unimportant. The Emperor’s daughter is only mentioned as that, no name, and in a throw-away line.

What you have is a pounding percussive score, massive-scale visuals, and a smattering of plot points from the novel, just enough (such as the names of planets) to place them in the familiar “story” territory important to Dune aficionados but perhaps confusing to those unfamiliar with the terms and the long list of characters who are only presented in superficial fashion. Villeneuve has Timothée Chalamet play Paul as a pale, confused, dark teenager troubled by continued angst; his long black curls often obscuring his scowling face. If he isn’t bothered by constant dreams or visions, he simply stands there with the same blank expression on his face in nearly every shot. Chalamet comes across more as a fashion icon than he does someone who fits into the story. With the camera focused so much on just his still expressionless face, it starts to come across as more a fault of the director than the actor for giving so little attention to Chalamet’s reactions.

Cinematographer Greig Fraser is as good as Lawrence of Arabia’s Freddie Young shooting widescreen drifting dunes, but then what’s so difficult about pointing the camera at sand… and there’s lots of it. Hans Zimmer’s score is more pounding militaristic percussion than it is soaring violins or memorable leitmotifs as Williams or Barry would do, fitting perhaps, considering all of the military emphasis. Where Villeneuve has more advantage in this 2021 version is in terms of visual effects. The scale, even in the novel, is a massive one… and when it comes to the final reveal of the worms, Villeneuve doesn’t disappoint – they’re big, as we expected them to be; gigantic creatures overwhelming in size… in both shots… that’s right… in nearly three hours, two shots.

Overall impression was high expectation followed by… wait, what about this person… and this person… and this event… but that was important! STOP! Sorry. We’re moving on without them. And finding none of the complexity or nuances on the screen. In my mind, Herbert’s novel is so complex and so steeped in terms of character depth, that it’s impossible to make a film of it that justifies the story as Herbert conveyed it in print. Dune needs to be told, every week, in about twenty or so one-hour episodes, where we could learn about all of the people in Paul’s life who help shape him to become the most powerful person in the universe. Dune, part one 2021 does not. It’s big. It’s grand. It’s also missing too many parts. Probably good if you’ve never read the novel. Otherwise, goodbye Duncan Idaho… we hardly knew ye.

[Chris Knipp]

DENIS VILLENEUVE: DUNE (2021)



Villeneuve's 'Dune' is good, but a bit overwhelmed by its source

Dennis Villeneuve revived Blade Runner in his own expanded version, which was very well received. (I had plenty of time for it, and unlike the Ridley Scott original, it required a lot of that commodity.) Now he does something even more important, because for fans of the Frank Herbert epic Dune the world's most popular science fiction novel, the ultimate sci-fi fan book, there was no completed film version but David Lynch's botched one. Those who know say this time Villeneuve has done it right. Or at least some of them do.

Villeneuve has made a film for fans and readers of the book: he has said so, expressing the hope that what he has done will please them. It appears to have generally also pleased the critics, with some strong dissenters. Beside Richard Brody, who in the digital back pages of The New Yorker finds the new film too slavish to plotline and specifics and "sanded to dullness," there is Michael Sragow for Film Comment, who unfortunately for him is a huge fan of Jodorowsky's never-completed Dune, (as its conception is seen in a documentary) and who sees Villeneuve's version as "a literalist compression of the book" and "vast and ponderous would-be epic."

I'd say Villeneuve may please the most dedicated fans of the books, but it's so loyal to those, it seems incomprehensible to non-fans in many particular details. And similarly it's a bit lacking in dash and originality, the sense of being the true work of an auteur who has made the source utterly his own and dared to branch out freely.

This is the paradox: Villeneuve's Dune is specific enough to distinguish itself quite clearly at almost every point from the numerous other sci-fi epics it resembles. But it would be nice it it had been truly unique and strange in style and conception as a film as well. I'm thinking of the still photos and voice-over of Chris Marker's magical and memorable La Jetée . If only there were something like that.

Another paradox is that while the landscapes both architectural and natural are impressive and distinctive, it's unfortunately true as Richard Brody rather cruelly says that at times despite its grand scale Dune occasionally seems a bit "cheesy" around the edges, like a CGI production waiting for its details, its vast buildings or massive crowds, to be "digitally filled in." I thought that, even as I was being impressed by the odd-looking hills and unusual buildings. And yet somehow the people who stumble around in the sand or engage in colloquy in English, in Chakobsa, or in special sign language, good as the cast is, seem less wonderful or memorable than the environment they're in.

This is with the notable exception of Timothée Chalamet, whose making of a hero-messiah from a cherished princeling is a coming of age story that holds center stage here and is a role this actor seems made to play. Chalamet's slim, ephebe frame , ivory skin and impeccable bone structure are present in every scene in this his second and more successful appearance as a princeling; the first was as prince Hal in David Michôd's rather lackluster The King. The impressive and ambitious Dune, if it meets with success with the public, is poised to climax Chalamet's rapid rise to fame and leading man status and make him a megastar. It's a trajectory that was sent on its way with Lady Bird and Little Women but most of all with Call Me by Your Name, where he really made love to the screen, as well as to Armie Hammer and a ripe peach, and showed his skill at the keyboard and with foreign languages. Here, he adds martial arts to his portfolio.

I'm still a little overwhelmed and baffled by Villeneuve's Dune, which is so authentic it's full of stuff that makes no sense to me. What is "the voice"? Why do people go blurry and vibrate every so often? What is this world, this oceanic planet Caladan Paul Atreides (Timothée) and his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac) and mother Lady Jessica (the pleasingly recessive Rebecca Fergusson) live on? What is this other world of the desert planet Arrakis they mine for its "spice"? I kept waiting for the giant miles-long sand worms I'd heard about to appear and never quite saw one. They were there; I just didn't know what to look for. I was impressed by the unusual (if identifiably brutalist) architecture encountered everywhere, the pleasing if sub-Lawrence of Arabia-grade dunes.

Indeed one just needs to prep for a story in which the author packed so much material. The [urlf="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)"]Wikipedia article[/url] mentions among "themes and influences" "Middle-Eastern and Islamic references, Environmentalism and ecology, Declining empires, Gender dynamics, Heroism," and "Zen and religion." The Middle-Eastern and Islamic material at times was quite evident, but one could see much was beneath the surface.

There are some key fights, sometimes fought in a most unorthodox manner: what about those men in matching uniforms who turn cartwheels between fisticuffs? It all requires the kind of patient explanation you get in the moments leading up to a Metropolitan Opera radio broadcast - or a careful review by watching the movie again on HBO Max. I see now the good sense of my friend who read Dune weeks ahead of the film's release. But I feel that whether Herbert's text would appeal to me or not, no amount of study will make Villeneuve's - nonetheless impressive and watchable - version truly sing for me.

Watching this in the same IMAX auditorium and the same seat where I saw No Time to Die two weeks ago, I had a different, rather less pleasant experience, even though this is arguably the better movie. To start with, there were more people in the audience - so many that it made me nervous and worried about mask-wearing and air, a sensitivity increased by the oxygen tubes worn on Arrakis by our heroes, so I continually felt about to run out of air or breathe poison myself. At the same time even more than the last I felt overwhelmed by a score by the same ubiquitous blockbuster composer, Hans Zimmer, which this time seemed less to thread together explosions as in the Bond picture and simply to be its own explosion overwhelming everything, including the dialogue, which at times I couldn't understand, at least when it didn't have subtitles. Wish I could have seen this in Paris, where the audience is more restrained and polite, doesn't walk back in front of you kicking your legs and chomp on popcorn (not that the chomping was audible over Zimmer's score). But this is a film to see in IMAX, or in the biggest best cinema you can find.

The best part of Villeneuve's Dune is the cliff-hanger finale, when you see Paul commit to staying on the desert planet to manage it. It's an exciting leap Paul is taking, a more-than-hint of his promise beginning to come true in a big way, and it's something you feel, and a promise of more to come. Here, Villeneuve had me.

Dune, 155 mins., debuted at Venice out of competition Sept. 3, 2021, also showing in Deauville, Toronto, Bogota, New York film festivals, Mill Valley, Chicago and Sydney. It opened in US theaters ad on HBO Max Fri., Oct. 22, 2021. Current Metacritic rating: 75%.

[cinemabon]

I would agree that Villeuneuve's film is visually striking and quite beautiful. Several shots in the film are quite memorable. However, this is Dune. Where is the Landstrad? Where are the Spice Navigators? The whole reason for the Duke being part of this plot against him is missing? You can't claim to be a story about Dune and leave out so many of the plot devices. It's like saying Gone With The Wind is a story about a southern girl and everything goes wrong for her... lots of visuals... none of the other characters matter... except maybe Rhett... oh, yeah... there's some kind of war going on. But more about that later.

Dune is more than just a series of sweeping shots with giant spaceships that dwarf people to specs. And the whole thing about the Duke's father being killed by a bull is some of the most superfluous information in the entire novel. It's as if Villeneuve is trying to re-write the story to his benefit... then you don't have Dune. You have something else.

There is a reason Jessica has Paul. There is a reason Paul knows what he knows. There is a reason Paul's small circle of friends are important. There is a reason the Emperor wants to diminish the Duke. There is a reason the spice Melange is so important. There is a reason the navigation guild is what they are and so dependent on the spice and that space travel isn't possible without them. There is a reason the societies are so militaristic. There is a reason the Bene Gesserit are so powerful and respected. And if you leave out all of these reasons and still claim to tell the story of Dune, then you've missed the whole point of the story. Yes, movies are a different medium. But the core story must be told. Otherwise, you have lots of pretty pictures with nothing to say and no reason for being there.

[Chris Knipp]

You make an eloquent case. However, I'm thinking many of those "reasons" can be understood intuitively. With all due respect, the ultimate question isn't whether Villeneuve's film satisfies you but whether it works as a film. Iim also curious whether all Herbert fans are as displeased with the film as you are. I think not.

On his blog/website Inverse, Ryan Britt, a Herbert fan, perhaps fanatic, and writer, would agree with you on much being left out but still thinks the film masterful. And he argues that in any form, including the books, the nature of DUNE is to be incomplete: "The truest Dune is the unfinished Dune."

[cinemabon]

I think I need to go back and watch the film again. I think I'll go sometime this week before it slips into smaller theaters. Right now (locally) its in our biggest theater of the complex. I'll wake up early and go to a matinee. Then I'll know if my feelings have changed.

[Chris Knipp]

Personally what I urgently need to see now is Wes Anderson's THE FRENCH DISPATCH. But I am also rewatching DUNE, piecemeal, at home on HBO. On the small screen the immensity is lost, but it's still exquisite, and I can turn down the volume of Han Zimmer's score to a manageable level.

The two films' Metacritic ratings are very close, DUNE 74% and THE FRENCH DISPATCH 75%. But from the sound of the most enthusiastic criticisms, Anderson's is the more unqualified success and career best. But, there are problems with both (in comprehension, in encompassing the complexities), and both are a matter of taste and not for everyone.