Of the two movies, Dune 2000 seems more accurate (it's been awhile since I've read the book so I can't remember details) but less in tune with the book's feel. For all its many flaws (and grotesqueness), 1984 Dune carries a flavor of vastness, otherworldliness. There's something to be said, I suppose, for not having everything spelled out completely. Dune 2000's biggest plus is William Hurt, whom I like, mostly for his quality of understatement. I could almost believe that the guy was a threat to the Emperor-- almost. In fact, the story of Dune holds together fairly well (and is surprisingly simple once shorn of background noise: ousted prince retakes his kingdom: very Campbellesque).
Still, I wasn't terribly impressed with Dune 2000, and I disliked the precocious child (Paul's sister, end of movie). I'm not a big fan of solutions that use precocious children and yes, that means I never cared much for Wesley from Star Trek (although I never loathed him as much as other people). I started reading a book in the middle of watching Dune 2000 and frankly, I'm not sure it mattered what I missed. Heroes run around in the desert. Scene cuts to the sneering Baron. Heroes run around in the desert some more. And I think the problem, really, is that haircut. Because it stopped mattering to me at some point that this guy was Mr. Cooler than Cool.
Ironically, I never believed in 1984 Paul because he went on looking boyish and charming with his carefully hair-blown dos. But at least he stayed human. Paul 2000 with his "I'm so in touch with all that space out there, I have to look like it" couldn't sustain my interest, which is vital if one wants to care (at all) whether the Baron gets Dune or not.
The point being, that for a film to work, the audience has to be invested in the outcome. And if you stop caring about the protagonists or, as happened to me with Titanic, start rooting for the antagonists, the film has failed. (Unless you get into the history of the thing and start watching the movie for flaws, which is also what happened with Titanic.)
***
I wrote this post in 2005. I have no idea if I would feel differently if I went back and reread the book, then rewatched the movies. I might wait for next year--the next Dune movie is scheduled for release in October 2021. Paul is being played by Timothee Chalamet, so I'm already a little impressed (he seems to have the right look; he is also an immensely talented young man in his own right).
3 comments:
I prefer the 2000 version of Dune; it is more faithful to the book, but still has some serious problems.
The problem with both version is that Paul is too old. In the book, he is still an adolescent. This is central to the story. So you end up having Paul saying stuff that just sounds dumb and naive coming from an 18 year old.
The second problem is that the writers/directors confuse the visions with getting high. The importance is the vision of the future itself; is Paul really seeing the future? And is the future he seeing the only possibility or just the easiest one (the later books suggest the latter, though I'm not sure Herbert was thinking that when writing Dune.)
BTW, Paul doesn't stay human and that's the point of the book. Unfortunately for the 2000 version, he doesn't become a mystic either. In the book Paul enters a society which has been deliberately manipulated into believing in a Messiah (a point lost on a lot of readers.) But Paul was a mistake in the master plan--he not only shows up too early, he's too independent and, too much a real Messiah, not merely a very good pretender.
Ironically, Children of Dune (2003) is a better adaptation (the book is decidely inferior to the first of the original trilogy.) The director, Greg Yaitanes, cleary understands and respects the books more (a theme I have harked on before.)
I largely agree with Anonymous with the caveat that Paul really did see the future.
The age problem in the adaptations is huge. It's a problem in the books as well. It's stated that Paul is 15 at the start of the books, but his behavior and how he is treated makes him 12 or 13.
That said, one thing that bugs me is that Herbert retconned his own material. In relation to this is the comment, by his son and others, that Frank's notes say this therefore...
No.
The printed word is the story, not the notes. I write bad fiction. I may write some notes to clarify in my own mind a character's personality or backstory. However, those notes often end up contradicting what I actually write because the characters and story often go in a different direction. Or what's in the notes is never referenced because it's irrelevant to the story and/or leaving it unknown fits better.
(Some time ago, Kate referenced Aslan's discussion with Edmund in Lion, Witch... We don't know what was said, if Lewis wrote notes for himself or even had a version where we knew, it doesn't matter and works best as is.)
Here's the Edmund post--Learning From Fan Fiction: Speaking for God.
Apparently, after Brokeback Mountain became a cultural phenomenon, the original writer of the short story Annie Proulx was inundated with fan fiction. She told an interviewer, "They constantly send ghastly manuscripts and pornish rewrites of the story to me, expecting me to reply with praise and applause for 'fixing' the story. They certainly don't get the message that if you can't fix it, you've got to stand it."
On the one hand, I understand Proulx's reaction. A failure to respect the source material can lead to terrible misreadings--the result can be rather like Calvin & Hobbes' games where Calvin changes the rules every three seconds.
On the other hand, I think she misses the affection behind much of this fan fiction.
Overall, I agree that when it comes to what is "canon," the original published work should be the guide. I don't begrudge the amount of material Tolkien's family put out after his death because writing notes (rather than books) was kind of his modus operandi. He loved creating more and more supplemental material around his world.
That is, Tolkien was a fan of his own Middle-Earth!
So expanding/changing/supposedly deepening additions to a world should be left to fans. The world as the result of a writer's published work should remain as that world's "best" version--that is, as Proulx states, it's the version that fans have got to "stand" or work with.
Post a Comment