I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune.
Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue.
Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021). Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action.
Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak.
I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the novel—any novel—into a film is going to be a daunting, thankless task. Novels and film are two distinct and very different mediums, and the choices you make, the compromises you are forced to make, define how good your adaptation will be. Some are tremendous (The Godfather, Jaws), some are awful (Bonfire of the Vanities, The Sum of All Fears). You will never make everyone happy; with Villeneuve's Dune, I find myself in the ranks of the unhappy.
My first thought was to accept that this isn't the definitive screen adaptation it sets out to be. Fine, we'll look at it on its own merits. Yet even there, it falls short.
Most of the problems have to do with altering key elements of the source material. The films, taken as a whole, make a major misstep right at the beginning, with the very first words spoken. This is the voice-over at the start of D1, Chani (Zendaya) lamenting the woes of her people, the Fremen. She paints an oppressor narrative, that the Fremen are the oppressed.
Which is complete nonsense that even the films seem to rebuke. The Fremen are hated by the townsfolk and sneered at by the Harkonnen and Empire. They are not oppressed. They own the desert like no one else does. They are the reason the Paul seeks "desert power." They are that power.
Villeneuve makes little tweaks like this throughout the story, both in D1 and D2, because he wanted to emphasize or de-emphasize one thing or another. The Mentats disappear, but they're the human computers that support empires. Now regular computers and machines seem to be brought in, but that undermines the entire rejection of so much technology. The Spacing Guild is essentially gone, yet they are the key to everything; the Guild needs spice to maintain its monopoly. Instead, it's all about the Bene Gesserit, or supposedly so because I saw no such thing. Indeed, they, like everyone and everything, lose their edge.
Chani becomes a doubter of the religious fervor that grips the Fremen when Paul arrives. Fine, but then it becomes a north vs south thing (something invented by Villeneuve and no where in the book). Chani is from the north desert and they're too sophisticated for religion and prophesy. Stilgar (Javier Bardem) is from the south desert ("Didn't you hear his accent?") and he's reduced to a religious simpleton.
What this change does is lay the foundation for the ultimate split between Chani and Paul. This is the central relationship in the book. Their love and their children form the basis for the entire saga that follows. Here, Chani has to be forced to save the life of the man she supposedly loves, all over her rejection of Fremen faith, all evidence of actual power and success being ignored. Chani's arrogance and self-righteousness are horrific.
Yes, it's all based on Bene Gesserit manipulations. That should have made the Bene Gerrerit the villains of the story, especially since the two forces that balance them out, the Spacing Guild and the Mentats, are gone. Yet, no, Villeneuve wouldn't do that, so it's all for naught. A Statement Is Made but it's all hollow because it hasn't got a serious foundation.
This is nothing new for Villeneuve. He did the same thing with the overrated Arrival. That film has such awesome moments that it's a shame that the changes he made undermine it to such a degree. He's another writer who is actually terrible at world building and doesn't understrand the intricacies of someone else's world he's trying to adapt to film.
As a film-going audience, we're starved for original entertainment, lost in a sea of sequels, remakes, and reboots. While Dune Parts Uno and Dos aren't entirely original, they are in their own way breath-takingly original to the cinema, examples of looking to the vast array of novels that cry out for film adaptations. They are both technically brilliant, beautiful to look at, superb demonstrations of the craft of filmmaking, examples of someone ensuring that every single dollar in the budget is on display, each dollar punching way above its weight.
It's a sub-par adaptation, though, and is best seen as it's own thing and not Frank Herbert's Dune. That was done much, much better decades ago by a SyFy mini-series. For all its low production values and some ham-fisted acting, John Harrison's two mini-series adaptations are wonderfully faithful to the novels and truer in spirit to what Frank Herbert wrote.
It has recently been confirmed that Villeneuve's desire to make a third Dune film has been approved (being profitable at the box office has a way of doing that). This will be Dune Messiah, the novel's first sequel, which was how Herbert wanted to end the original novel. I'll buy my ticket and see how well Villeneuve does, especially as compared to Harrison's work.
Reportedly, Villeneuve will adapt Anne Jacobsen's ludicrous Nuclear War: A Scenario first. Please, no. Denis, get to work on your adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama. For all my complaints, I believe you are a perfect fit and I'll be first in line to watch the final results.
Comments