The Big Picture
- David Lynch's Dune captured the essence of the novel with unique visuals and little humor, staying true to the source material.
- Villeneuve's adaptation delves deeper into details, adds humor, and focuses on Paul's emotional burden, making it more relatable.
- Lynch's version, though a financial failure, remains a cult hit for its accurate depiction of the novel's unique style and lack of humor.
Frank Herbert’s epic science fiction novel Dune was long seen as “unadaptable,” as it seemed impossible that any cinematic adaptation could properly flesh out the extensive detail that the novel contains about its fictional universe. While Dune itself proved to be highly influential upon the science fiction genre as whole, influencing franchises like Star Wars, a straight adaptation of the first book was by no means an easy task. Surrealist filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky famously failed to bring his ambitious epic version of the story to life. It took the vision of Denis Villenueve to properly nail the political intrigue, epic scale, and eye popping visuals of the Dune universe in his acclaimed two-part adaptation of the first book. While the modern update is the far more compelling film, David Lynch’s 1984 version of Dune is a better adaptation of the book than Villenueve’s.
Dune (1984)
PG-13Sci-FiActionAdventureA Duke's son leads desert warriors against the galactic emperor and his father's evil nemesis to free their desert world from the emperor's rule.
Release Date December 3, 1984 Director David Lynch Cast Kyle MacLachlan , Virginia Madsen , Francesca Annis , Leonardo Cimino , Brad Dourif , Jose Ferrer , Linda Hunt , Freddie Jones Runtime 137 Minutes Main Genre Sci-Fi Writers Frank Herbert , David Lynch ExpandDavid Lynch’s ‘Dune’ Is a Good Adaption
The story of Lynch’s experience making the original Dune is perhaps more compelling than the film itself. Considered a young and exciting filmmaker thanks to the success of his arthouse horror film Eraserhead and his Oscar-nominated biopic The Elephant Man, Lynch was considered to be the perfect director to helm a massive franchise that could fill an audience’s appetite for a new science fiction series after the conclusion of the original Star Wars trilogy. Despite his ambitions to kickstart a multi-part series, Lynch had a terrible experience making Dune due to the excessive studio meddling and an inability to have creative control. It was an adaptation that he eventually disowned and discredited entirely; in addition to marking an end to the planned Dune series, the film inspired Lynch to step away from tentpole franchises altogether.
While the film was an epic financial failure that earned highly negative reviews from critics, Lynch’s version of Dune captures the otherworldliness of the original source material. Herbert’s novel explicitly describes the characters and events as if they are wholly unique from anything recognizable in human history. While there is certainly a lot of action and intrigue that’s common within space opera films, Dune was never intended to be a rip-roaring audience crowd pleaser in the vein of Star Wars. Considering that Lynch is one of the few surrealist filmmakers that has endeared himself to a mainstream audience, he was perhaps the only person capable of bringing this unique story to life. Lynch avoids inserting any direct emotional conflicts that would attempt to make the material more palatable to audiences in search of a traditional “hero’s journey.”
In addition to crafting splendid visuals that are distinct from other science fiction epics, Lynch perfectly captures the strange influence of “spice” within the Dune universe. Villenueve’s version examines the economic power that spice holds for House Atreides, and explains why it’s a commodity so valuable that Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) would be willing to wage war on Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) to ensure that Arrakis does not fall into the hands of his enemies. However, Lynch is able to show in more detail the psycoactive effect that this corruptive drugs has upon the characters. It impacts their vocal characteristics, physical mannerisms, and decision-making skills. It has an oddly esoteric effect that, in some ways, justifies the emotional coldness of the characters.
Denis Villeneuve’s ‘Dune’ Makes Major Changes to the Book
CloseVillenueve’s adaptation of Dune had the benefit of being split between two installments, which allowed it to flesh out more of the details from the novel that the 1984 version was forced to leave out. In addition to delving deeper into the politics of the Dune universe, Villenueve’s version was able to spend more time fleshing out the supporting characters and explaining their dynamic with Paul (Timothée Chalamet). However, Villenueve’s version of Dune ignores the framing device that is critical within the novel; each chapter begins with an account by the Princess Irulan that gives contextual information about the events. While Lynch’s Dune features Virginia Madsen delivering direct-to-camera speeches similar to these passages, Villenueve’s adaptation did not add Florence Pugh as the same character until the second part.
Villenueve’s version of Dune also succeeded thanks to an excellent performance by Chalamet, who captures the emotional burden that Paul is under due to the responsibilities of his position. In addition to fulfilling both the expectations of his father and coping with the shocking backstory of his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), Paul is both apprehensive and skeptical about being dubbed a messianic figure by the natives of Arrakis. However, Paul isn’t necessarily the most relatable character in Herbert’s novel, and Kyle MacLachlan certainly brings out the inherent stoicism of the character. While he is definitely vulnerable as a result of the familial tragedy he experiences, MacLachlan’s version of Paul is still an entitled aristocrat who has trouble letting go of his privileges.
1:37
Related'Dune's Movie Adaptations Never Mention One of Its Most Crucial Events
Paul Atreides' holy war is not Arrakis' first.
Lynch’s ‘Dune’ Is Just as Humorless as the Book
Villenueve’s version of Dune adds considerably more humor to the story, as characters like Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa) and Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin) add a touch of humanity and levity to a film that is largely reliant on exposition. While this helps make the film’s 155 minute running time feel less oppressive, Herbert’s novel was relatively light on humor. The interactions between Paul, Duncan (Richard Jordan), and Halleck (Patrick Stewart) are almost entirely grounded in political discussions about the fate of the civil war that is brewing. In fact, the only character that seems to elicit any joy in Lynch’s film is Sting’s Feyd-Rautha, who seems to just genuinely enjoy being pure evil.
Despite the film’s unfortunately lackluster financial performance, Lynch’s version of Dune has become a cult hit in the years since its release. Considering how many bad Star Wars knockoffs there have been in the decades since the film's first release, it’s impressive that Lynch resisted the urge to conform to industry trends and simply do his own thing. Villenueve’s version of Dune is ultimately the more successful film and will be heralded as a future classic; however, Lynch’s adaptation is the more accurate depiction of the peculiar style of Herbet’s source material.
Dune (1984) is streaming on Max in the U.S.
ncG1vNJzZmibn6G5qrDEq2Wcp51ksaLCyJ1kpbGemLVusNSnnGaclaO2tHnVoqOlnZ6awrex0maZqKebYq6lrc%2BtmK2hn6N8