Message-ID: <2870@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 00:34:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.2870
Posted: Wed Dec 19 00:34:38 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 00:49:49 EST
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 114
Xref: watmath net.movies:5298 net.sf-lovers:5420


     I am finding out the hard way just how difficult it is to
work at 300 baud with a dumb terminal which only has 40 columns.
Please forgive a certain lack of polish.

     "Dune" simultaneously plays to David Lynch's weaknesses and
strengths.  Both are plainly evident from his previous films, and
even from his background, but "Dune" displays them as never be-
fore.  Lynch was an artist before he took up film, and visuals
have always been his greatest strength, as anyone who saw
"Eraserhead" can attest.  Viewers of that film can also vouch for
Lynch's ability to establish moods.  In "The Elephant Man", Lynch
was able to fit these talents within a Hollywood framework
without major compromise.  No one, including me, noticed that he
had one fatal weakness, a weakness not likely to show up in films
like "Eraserhead" or "The Elephant Man".  David Lynch is not a
storyteller.  His gifts are almost purely visual, and even within
the sphere of the visual they do not partake of the narrative im-
pulse.  Before "Dune", one might have thought that Lynch simply
wasn't very interested in story, but that he might have been able
to handle it when necessary.  "Dune" illustrates that this is not
the case.

     "Dune" was an impossible assignment to begin with.  Frank
Herbert's novel is over five hundred pages long, crammed with
plot, characters, and atmosphere.  There are some splendid visual
opportunities, but there is just too much stuff to fit into a
conventional Hollywood movie, and the expense required to bring
off the story precluded anything but a major hollywood film.  In
fact, the visual possibilities seemed to be what drew filmmakers
to "Dune".  Several of those who previously made serious efforts
to get a film made included Jadorewsky (almost certainly
misspelled in the absence of my film reference books;  he direct-
ed "El Topo") and Ridley Scott.  Not surprisingly, none of those
involved were especially strong as storytellers; they were all
visualists.

     "Dune" defeats Lynch utterly at the story level.  Lynch's
screenplay visits all of the major incidents in the first half of
the book, and most of those in the second, but the overall feel-
ing is like nothing so much as one of those "ten day, twelve
countries" tours of Europe.  It all flies by too fast, losing all
nuances in the process.  Lynch includes the major plot elements,
but leaves out all that made "Dune" a fascinating book: the ecol-
ogy of the planet, the historical background of the empire, the
culture of the Fremen (natives of the planet Dune, for the unini-
tiated out there), motivations of the characters, and the philo-
sophical point of the whole thing.  some elements which Lynch
chose to add to the story run from irrelevant to harmful, and are
at best a waste of time.  Welcome to the Reader's Digest con-
densed version of "Dune".
     i will leave out the usual plot summary, as the plot of
"dune" is extremely complicated.  anything i said would either
spoil or confuse the newcomers, and would bore those familiar
with the novel.  suffice it to say that there are many twists and
turns which David Lynch tries to navigate with almost every hoary
story device known to filmmakers, including narration, voice
overs of people thinking (a particularly annoying device in this
film which Lynch beats into the ground ),
 obvious expository dialog, and that science fiction chestnut,
the book that tells you all about your brand new planet.  these
devices are very poorly integrated.

     Along with a byzantine plot comes a large and varied cast of
characters.  Lynch has unwisely chosen to include almost all of
them in the film version, even if it means giving them only one
or two meaningless scenes and then dropping them.  He seems to
believe, rather naively, that if he puts well known actors in
these roles, we will understand that they are important charac-
ters, even though they have nothing to do in the film.

     in fact, the cast as a whole has so little to do in this
film that it is almost meaningless to speak of the quality of
their performances.  no one has the time or scenes to distinguish
themselves, except for newcomer kyle mckechnie (definitely
misspelled, probably only an approximation of his last name).
he, alas, is not up to the opportunity, and is little more than
handsome in the role of Paul.  Jurgen Prochnow has some impact as
Duke Leto and Sting and Kenneth McMillain are ok as the principle
villains.  all of the other actors are so much set decoration.

     and with that, on to happier topics, such as the set decora-
tion.  Lynch has produced
 a visually stunning film.  the sets and costumes are bizarre and
brilliant.  the effects, by a team including Kit West ("raiders
of the lost ark"), Carlo Rambaldi (the creator of e. t.) and Al-
bert Whitlock, matte painter extraordinaire, are first rate.
many of them are even new.  what more could one ask from special
effects?  well, perhaps a better integration into the story.  the
only effects that can be considered a failure are the scenes of
people riding sandworms.  the worms themselves are fine, but it
looks like the shots of people on them didn't work out, so the
effects team  fell back on the old trick of implying the effect
rather than showing it.  David Lynch has imagined a weird
universe that is an awful lot of fun to look at.  this would have
been sufficient if he were making the dune calendar, but it is
insufficient for a film.

     so the bottom line is looks 10, story 3.  the film would
have been better off the other way around, but that would have
been nearly impossible, given the problems "dune" presents to
filmmakers.  unlike most bad science fiction movies, "dune" is
not a failure due to slavish imitation, lack of imagination, or
indifference.  the makers of "dune" obviously cared, came up with
something original,
 and failed.  too bad, but how many of you who are familiar with
the book are honestly surprised?  regrettably, i can't recommend
"dune" unless you are willing to settle for visual impact alone,
which few of us are.
-- 

        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher