Dune (Wide Screen) > Reviews > Dune: The book is always better?

Author's product rating:   

Did you enjoy it?	Liked it
Story	Satisfactory
Characters / Performances	Outstanding
Special Effects	Outstanding
How does it compare to similar films?	Unmemorable

Advantages:	Still impressive visuals, great cast
Disadvantages:	Pretentious, confusing, my copy's out of sync

Recommend to potential buyers:

yes

Full review

"The book is always better than the film. Discuss."

Even after over twenty years, Dune is still a very very weird film. Cult director and probable insane genius David Lynch helmed this 1984 adaptation of Frank Herbert's doorstop science-fiction novel.

Specific gripes first: my copy of the DVD is a bit glitchy. The transfer seems to have been a pretty ropy job in places with freezes, pixellation and skipping (that might just be my copy) and the sound is out of sync with the actors by up to about half a second in some scenes (which is probably the same for everyone). I only paid £3.99 in a clearance sale, but even so.

Also, this is a vanilla DVD taken to ridiculous extremes. There's a particularly poor picture of Paul Atreides gazing at the sky for the menu, and the options are either 'play film' or 'scene selection' without even the obligatory 'theatrical trailer' or language options. I'm not a big fan of DVD extras, famously, but this just seems to be a bit rude, frankly. Anyway.

In the far future, humanity has come to rely on a mysterious substance called the 'spice melange' to extend their lives and travel through space. It can only be found on one hostile desert planet, and the Emperor decides to send House Atreides to oversee operations as a pretext to remove Duke Leto Atreides, who he sees as a rival.

House Harkonnen, which consists of two fat bastards and Sting in a loincloth, hatch a plot to destroy House Atreides but the Duke's son throws a spanner in the works by becoming a Messiah to the desert-dwelling Fremen.

I dread to think how much Dune must have cost to produce. It is a ridiculously lavish film, full of massive sets with hundreds of extras, and special effects that still hold up commendably well for the digital age. If the occasional ornithopter shot looks a bit creaky, the fabby shield fighting and the groovy flying Baron Harkonnen more than make up for them, and to my amazement the giant Worms of Arrakis (the desert planet) don't look too bad either.

The film also zips along at an astonishing rate as it aims to condense a MASSIVE book into a two hour running time. The speed at which things happen makes it intensely confusing, however, and there's an over-reliance on voiceovers to fill in the gaps.

The acting performances are splendid, from a young Kyle Maclachlan as Paul Atreides, a character who grows from cocky boy to God-in-waiting over the course of the film, to Patrick Stewart providing solid support as minstrel-warrior Gurney Halleck. Even Sting turns in a decent performance, although his alarming hair is cause for concern...

So if it's fast, looks good and is brilliantly acted, what's the problem?

The first problem Dune has is clearly being desperate not to be confused with Star Wars - which is hard considering they're both about young boys on desert planets gaining colossal mental and physical powers and avenging their fathers. The introduction, as Princess Irulan tells us the backstory against a starfield, is as carefully opposite to the classic scrolling captions as it can possibly be. Instead of 'a long time ago' we're now in the year ten thousand, for example.

The second problem is the constant exposition. Considering the pace of most of the film, the first twenty minutes is almost painful, as characters wander around telling each other things they already know for the audience's benefit. Worst offender is clearly the Emperor, who stands around crowing about his cunning plans for about five minutes, dressed like a fascist Santa Claus and apparently unaware that he appears to be speaking to a giant set of female genitalia in a tank.

As soon as the Atreides family makes it to Arrakis, or Dune, things do get going. There's a traitor in their midst, you see, but don't worry because it's entirely obvious who it is from the first instant, thus removing any suspense whatsoever.

Abandoned in the desert, Paul starts turning into God or something, having loads of prophecies and training the desert Fremen to become even more ferocious warriors by shouting at boxes on his arm.

The thing is, this is all utterly pretentious tosh, but you go with it because it's so beautifully filmed. Lynch keeps the dazed viewer from losing the plot by keeping a careful grip on his cinematography - we always know whether we're with the Fremen or in House Harkonnen by the texture of the lighting, not to mention the distinctive sets. And the dream sequences are affecting in their simplicity and repetition.

Ultimately, however, there's just too much going on to make the film entirely satisfying. There are constant visual spectacles jostling each other out of the way. One second we're thrilling at the sight of Paul surfing on a giant Worm, the next minute he's addressing a massive cavern of disciples. It's almost as though Lynch is sacrificing his visuals for the sake of cramming in as much story as possible.

Ignorant people would call this a good thing. Usually when a book is adapted for the screen, there are those who will complain about this, that and the other being cut or altered. See Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings for the most bizarre example.

The fact is that film and literature are separate media, and changes will always have to be made to translate a story between them. Where Dune falls down is not in what it leaves out, but rather what is left in.

Underlying Herbert's novel are some very dull thoughts on desert formation and reclamation and planetary ecology. Lynch very sensibly chucks all this out to make the attempt to restore water to Arrakis into another manifestation of Paul's groovy powers. But he keeps the character of the 'planetary ecologist' for some reason. Kynes is clearly up to something in the film, as he is in the book, but this is never brought out and he just disappears. Later, his daughter is introduced, but only by his Fremen name which is mentioned nowhere else in the entire film.

Similarly, Atreides advisor Thufir Hawat is kept in the film long after he has any relevance to the story at all.

People keep talking about Sardaukar troops even though they do even less in the film than they do in the book.

Paul's sister Alia is kept in despite cutting all the scenes that explain why she's so freaky. This evil toddler just appears from nowhere with only a mumbled voiceover to explain her presence. And it's a little odd that Princess Irulan introduces the entire story, because it's literally the only time you see her.

I can only imagine that all this confusion is due to a huge amount of stuff being filmed and then cut for timing reasons. The brevity of some scenes is so blatant that there must have been a massive pile of cuttings on the floor of Dune's editing suite.

But it's still head and shoulders above the book. Herbert's novel is a rambling mess that he seemed to make up as he went along (he makes Paul all-knowing about a third of the way in, but later seems to realise that would make a dull book, so this power conveniently deserts him whenever he gets into a fight or, in other words, whenever it would be remotely useful).

The novel also gives Paul a bewildering array of mystical titles: Duke Atreides, Usul, Lisan-al-Gaib, Mu'ad-Dib, Kwisatz Haderach, and then even starts to mix and match these monikers as the story grinds inexorably on. Lynch plays down at least a few of these, thank goodness.

He also leaves out all the really stupid stuff about the Fremen, who in are supposed to be a bunch of tough desert fighters with a mystical streak but who in reality spend most of the book bitching at each other like drama students.

A film adaptation can be better than its source novel, and it's just intellectual snobbery to suggest any different. The perception that the book must be superior is probably due to the fact that film is more widely distributed than literature. If a great and popular novel is filmed, people will inevitably find fault with the adaptation. If a crap and obscure novel (this happened a lot in my specialist era of the Nouvelle Vague) is turned into a fantastic film, the chances are no one will have read the book anyway.

Basically, to say a book will always be better than a film is as inherently absurd as saying a sculpture will always be better than a painting.

__________________
This review was written as part of Olly Plimsoll's 'The book is always better?' challenge. To participate, simply review a story, either the book or the film version, and include a few lines about which you prefer, including this paragraph at the end.