Frank Herbert’s “Dune” is one of sci-fi’s greatest masterpieces. His vision of the future—combining myth, politics, and environmentalism—inspired over five decades worth of imitators.
Even after all these years, “Dune” remains unique because of its massive scale, worldbuilding, and lore. However, this has caused the book to gain its reputation as an “unadaptable” work.
From Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed attempt to adapt the book in the mid-70s, to David Lynch’s critically panned version in 1984, “Dune” adaptations have a bad history of being over-the-top, bizarre, and campy without capturing the themes of the original novel.
For a while, many fans were ready to accept that “Dune” would never receive a proper adaptation, until it was announced in 2017 that French director, Denis Villeneuve, would direct a brand new two-part adaptation. Excitement grew when Villeneuve said in interviews that his two sci-fi hits “Blade Runner 2049” and “Arrival” were practice for this passion project.
After about four years in development, “Dune” is finally out. But with all the hype surrounding its release, does it live up to expectations?
For those unfamiliar with the book, “Dune” is the story of Paul Atreides: a young nobleman from the house Atreides, who gets caught up in the vicious conflict between House Atreides and the Harkonnen family. While initially presented as an innocent victim of circumstance, Paul eventually rises into power and wages a bloody war on the Harkonnens alongside the oppressed Fremen.
Besides its promise of being a faithful adaptation of Herbert’s book, “Dune”’s other major selling point is its cast. The film’s poster boasts Timothée Chalamet, Oscaar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, and Javier Bardem all in major roles.
Chalamet’s performance as Paul is excellent; he captures the subtle mystery of the character that previous actors lacked. Stellan Skarsgård also surprised me in how well he played the film’s Villain, Baron Harkonnen: a hideous monster who is also thoughtful and cunning.
Unfortunately, there are also casting choices that feel out of place and bizarre. Even setting aside the controversial gender swap of Dr. Kynes, the lack of Arab actors in an adaptation of a book so influenced by Arab and Islamic culture felt jarring. The clean, movie-star looks of Zendaya and Javier Bardem in their roles of two Fremen—a hardened, nomadic race—often broke the immersion Villeneuve worked so hard to create.
Villeneuve’s sci-fi worldbuilding is “Dune”’s greatest strength, but also an element that will fall short for many fans of the book. The set design, costumes, cinematography, lighting, and art direction all contribute to a coherent and unified vision of “Dune”’s world. Orientalist architecture, medieval-looking armor, unique ship designs, and a brutal, desert environment combine to set “Dune” apart from other sci-fi movies like “Star Wars”.
While “Dune” succeeds in worldbuilding from a visual perspective, the film omits the majority of the book’s lore, and many of Herbert’s fascinating concepts are reduced to trivial sci-fi quirks. Mentions of the Butlerian Jihad, mentats, the Suk, and Kynes’s father are all absent, despite their importance in understanding the world of “Dune”. While I understand Villeneuve’s inclination towards a visual approach, the film loses a lot from these omissions.
Alongside the missing lore, “Dune”’s biggest problem is its strange pacing. While the book also suffered from a strange ordering of events, the film also jumbles together and omits several important events. The arcs of characters like Dr. Yueh, the hunt for the traitor, and Baron Harkonnen’s plan, feel either rushed or omitted entirely.
While it certainly would’ve been jarring for the book’s many instances of internal monologue to be adapted, it would’ve helped to include more dialogue scenes. Some of the most memorable scenes in the book came from Paul simply discussing things with other characters.
Frank Herbert’s “Dune” is a book I hold in high regard, and it’s no exaggeration to say that this film was one of my most anticipated films this year. While it’s certainly the most faithful and technically impressive adaptation of the book to date, it misses out on many of the nuances and character development of the original novel.
The hype and critical acclaim surrounding “Dune” isn’t completely unwarranted. It’s an above-average, sci-fi epic, aided by beautiful visuals, and a great cast. However, underneath its technical perfection, the complex political and ecological drama of the novel is missing.
Despite this, I’m still looking forward to how the second half of the novel will be adapted in a sequel. There’s a lot of good ideas at work here, and with all the worldbuilding out of the way, it’d be refreshing to see part 2 focus more on character development and political drama.
Denis Villeneuve has proven that he can direct a technically-impressive sci-fi epic. I’m looking forward to seeing if he can convey Herbert’s ultimate message, that no matter how technologically advanced and “enlightened” humanity becomes, charismatic leaders and religious zeal will always have power over us. That is what will decide whether “Dune” is simply an impressive blockbuster or a great adaptation of a masterpiece.
About Post Author
