Review : Dune Version 2

Having been pretty excited by the new Dune trailer for more than a year, I finally got to see the whole movie. In a giant IMAX-3D format, no less, which I highly recommend. The 3D is a bit unnecessary but nice; there are some good distance shots, but the main benefit is from having as large a viewing area as humanly possible.

Before I get to the movie itself, I want to note a couple of really first rate long-read articles. The first one is a conventional sort of analysis exploring the influences acting on Frank Herbert in writing the story. The second is a much more unusual theological analysis from the Islamic perspective, showing that the Muslim references and Arabic trappings of the book run much deeper than giving it a flair of the exotic. Both are very long reads, but worthwhile.

In the first piece the essential conclusion is that Herbert had a lot of unresolved conflicts. A conservative environmentalist who supported colonialism but hated its consequences, a borderline technocrat who sought out mysticism, it's no wonder Dune is so bloody complicated that it comes with multiple appendices and a dictionary. I would here add also feminism. While the Empire is dominated by patriarchs, it's also subject to intense, prolonged manipulation by a group super-intelligent warriors who are also entirely female : the Bene Gesserit. Moreover, as the second article explores in depth, while the books are replete with mysticism, I do not really agree with the analysis that this is necessarily implied as "the" solution for a ruler or Herbert's desired outcome (especially given later events). We should also not forget that science dominates the universe of Dune, not least in the Bene Gesserit's millennia-long breeding programme (a.k.a. genetic manipulation just without the technological tools of the trade) to produce their fabled Kwisatz Haderach. If religion points the way, then in Dune, at least, it's science that charts the course.

As I've referenced quite frequently in recent reviews of fiction, I'm increasingly of the mindset that what you take away from fiction is more in your own mind than that of the author. Never was this more true than in Dune. Yes, there are straightforward, classical heroes in the Atreides, and archetypal villains in the Harkonnens. But absolutely everything in between is far, far more complex. Is even Paul Atreides himself truly a hero ? I say no, he does both heroic and villainous acts, even if the latter are born of necessity (in that sense, Dune cannot really be seen as white saviour tale, even though there are certainly aspects of this present). Are the Fremen heroes ? Again - by Western standards - in some ways yes, in some ways no. They are altogether more real and more complex than that, even though one can certainly find extreme examples on both ends of the spectrum throughout the novels.

Likewise, as in the focus of the second article, Dune explores religion not by providing us with the author's preferred "right" answer but more by exploring a whole array of various possibilities. The faiths of the future evolve and change in complex ways, and likewise the system of government never really settles on a single solution. It seems to me to be left largely to the reader to decide what they like about the possibilities explored and what they are horrified by. To me, Herbert's vision of the future is largely dystopian with flashes - brief but truly brilliant moments - of inspired, shining heroism. Conversely, the ugliest message from Dune is that the future is, like the present, largely unpleasant, replete with conflicts that the author implies are literally impossible to resolve, amicably or otherwise.

For this reason it is even more important than in most cases that a movie adaptation be true to the spirit of the book. Do not try and foist your own moralistic spin on the tale; the viewer, and the viewer alone, should get to decide that for themselves. Yes, you can replace Liet Kynes with a woman, as that changes nothing whatever about the story. But pretty much any other character alterations would be dangerous indeed, let alone in altering the storyline itself. At least try to tell me, first and foremost, the tale the author wanted to tell; if you want to tell your own story, do it elsewhere. It's a mark of huge presumption when a director takes a much-loved tale and thinks they can make fundamental changes to it, be that to make it more "woke" or any other reason. I want to discuss the author's vision and whether I approve or not; I don't want something modernised in the slightest.

(Aside, point 1 : this is not to say that I hold this as an absolute by any means, just a general guideline which I feel is especially pertinent in something as morally ambiguous as Dune. Setting down general conditions as what I think makes for a good, sensible deviation in a movie from its source material is not at all easy, so I won't attempt it here.)

(Aside, point 2 : as examples, two recent movies I watched on the small screen : Amazon's The Aeronauts, about a pioneering Victorian ballooning expedition to the giddy heights of 36,000 feet, and the BBC's Ammonites, about the famous fossil hunter Mary Anning. I enjoyed Aeronauts very much. The female lead is an invented character who replaces one of the real-life male explorers, but the character is well-written, well-acted, and serves as a counterweight to the science of the male lead. Most importantly, the science is respected and integral to the movie. Not so with Ammonites, which barely mentions the dominating factor of Anning's life of fossil hunting. Instead it invents, completely without evidence, a lesbian storyline. Sorry, but if I watch a movie about Mary Anning, I'm not turning on to watch her eating pussy. I'm really not. I want to know about the literal freakin' sea monsters she discovered and why they inspired her. Also, as it happens she had a far more interesting life than depicted in the movie, and I felt that by basically omitting all of this the film did her a massive disservice. It wasn't necessarily a bad movie, it was just a bad thing to do to this particular character.)

Anyway, I'm pleased to say that Dune far exceeded my expectations. It's a proper, faithful epic that does full justice to Herbert's magisterial work. A dark tale on a bright planet, I give it an easy 9/10.

First off, the cinematography and the visuals are first rate. Without inventing anything, the rather slow beginning of the book comes vividly and spectacularly to life. In look and feel it has Dennis Villeneuve all over it, minimalist but grand, with more baroque stylings where needed. The sandworms deserve especial credit, but so too does the architecture and vehicles. I never expected anyone to attempt on-screen ornithopters, but Villeneuve has managed it pretty well. If you like nothing else, you ought to be impressed by the visuals at the very least.

Second the cast. Again, faultless. I was a bit wary that they chose an actor closer to Paul's original age, but he plays the role well despite looking like he's closer to 12 than Paul's 15 (amazingly he's actually 25). The Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is the gross, disgusting villain he's supposed to be - not as pantomime as in Lynch's version, but that's no bad thing. Touches of humour, missing from the book, are deftly injected here and there which only enrich the characters further. Their complexity is to my mind well depicted, but viewers will definitely benefit from the book. By and large, exposition to explain the plot points is kept to a happy minimum : enough to see everyone through, but never to the point of being spoon-fed unless absolutely necessary and then only in a careful way that doesn't ever feel forced.

The mystical aspect of Paul, I thought, was handled particularly well. Paul's visions are, like the Voice, viscerally forced on the viewer, as a just-confusing-enough blend between current and future events to be disorienting without being overwhelming. There is a dreamlike quality where it's not immediately obvious as to when a vision starts and end that isn't so overdone that the audience is ever lost. Likewise with the storytelling in general : there's plenty presented to get you by, but enough is not shown that the audience can, and is likely expected to, fill in the gaps for themselves. This is a very delicate balance given how much of the novel happens in people's heads, with their words and actions constantly being at odds, but I think Villeneuve has handled this very well.

The only "major" change of character I noticed was in Paul's fight with Jamis. In the book, Jessica explains that he's not toying with his opponent, it's that he's used to shield fighting, which demands a different technique. In the movie, she instead says he's never killed anyone before. I don't remember if she also mentions this in the book as well, but I thought this was if anything a more interesting perspective to present to the audience, reinforcing Paul's moral ambiguity - something much more important than the mechanics of shields.

Pacing is just about perfect. Like all Villeneuve movies it's slow, but not distractingly so. It's got a lot more going on than in Blade Runner 2049, but the long, slow shots are extremely effective at developing an engrossing alien world. It could perhaps have packed a little more of the book into its two and a half hours (it ends about midway through the book, before the really interesting stuff happens), with the major scene that's missing being the banquet in Arakeen, but in my view there's still plenty there, and nothing felt obviously missing. The movie's plot flows and develops perfectly well. In feel, it often feels like a better version of the 1984 version.

This isn't necessarily the definitive version of Dune, but it's a damned good one. Alternative versions could easily try and bring in more of the character's inner thoughts that Herbert describes extensively, which obviously presents a filming challenge and would probably be better suited to a series than a movie. For me, as a film I say this one nails it. It's an excellent stand-alone work and absolutely superb as a companion to the book. 

The only downside ? It doesn't have Patrick Stewart charging into battle with a pug. Oh well, you can't have everything.