Apparently David Lynch was considered for the direction of "Return of the Jedi." Instead he went for "Dune" as his huge budgeted sci-fi movie. I'm glad he did because it gave him control of the screenplay as well directorial duties whereas "Return of the Jedi" would have offered only one of these. We can only imagine what Lynch would have done for the third Star Wars movie and in a parallel universe somewhere, maybe, there is the Lynch-directed "Return of the Jedi." The ewoks probably turned out to be a lot less annoying. But, that's really not important. In fact, fuck getting all Schrodinger's Cat on this shit. Let's fucking talk about Dune. Hey, best fucking idea you've had all night.
I came home drunk last night and popped in the David Lynch version of the adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic novel. It is striking, epic, brilliant, compelling and worthy of just about any congratulatory adjective that I can think of for all intensive purposes of describing a kick ass sci-fi movie from the 80's. I was awake for the first twenty minutes, but passed out in the ol' recliner as its rapturous narrative unfolded. I made sure to finish it, re-watching the first twenty minutes because they left such an impression of otherworldly coolness upon my drunken slumber. It then dawned on me that a lot of people hate this movie, especially devotees of David Lynch and of Frank Herbert's book. I can't imagine why. It's pretty fucking kick ass. So, I've decided to address some of the stock critical complaints about this movie in order to try and figure out just what in the hell is actually wrong with it, if anything (I really don't think anything is.)
A lot of people bitch about Lynch's screenplay claiming that it's hollow and untrue to the book. It's too different from the book for people who have read it and for people who haven't, it makes no sense. Well, first of all, is it really that hollow? There are quite a few classic lines in the screenplay peppered with just the right amount of sci-fi camp. In the right mood, if you're smoking the right weed, they'll fucking do. Oh will they ever. Were we expecting the neurotic witty wordsmithery of Woody Allen? No, its set eight thousand fucking years in the future. The characters are naturally going to be hard to identify with. They've had a fucking minimum of shared life experiences with people born 1940-2000. Okay, so the screenplay isn't true to the book. It really isn't. Lynch took some serious liberties. Since when is this a bad thing? If you've already read the book why the fuck would you want a verbatim experience? Just fucking read the book over again. The movie offers something new. It offers a unique interpretation of the unbelievably solid plot that could only come from David Lynch. Nobody bitches about how far Stanley Kubrick strayed from the book with his screenplay for "The Shining." Discounting Stephen King... "Dune" as a film functions in the same way. They both bring to the table some really cool psychedelic undertones and they take their liberties with the already solid stories to provide a unique interpretation. Ohhhh you know give the viewer something only they could really offer as screenwriters being of the genius caliber. As far as people who haven't read "Dune" and can't follow the plot-...pay attention. It makes sense as long as you focus your attention on it. Even if you don't it makes a lot more sense than most David Lynch movies. It's no more hard to grasp than "Lost Highway". It's not a bad thing to have to focus on a deeper level while watching a movie. It draws you in further and generally makes it more enjoyable assuming entertainment is to be considered a diversion.
Another common complaint is that "Dune" is dated. The special effects, the soundtrack by ToTo-a band that is no longer cool to like (assuming it was ever cool to like ToTo...) So, the special effects are dated? Well, be that as it may, they look a hell of a lot better than most CGI gangbangs of the last ten years. This came out in 1984. Compare the special effects to special effect landmarks made around the same time such as "Alien", Carpenter's "The Thing" and "Star Wars." The special effects in "Dune" stand up pretty well. The sandworms certainly don't look like bosses on X-box games like they inevitably would if "Dune" were to be made again in this decade (Please God, no.) So why all the fuss about d8ed fx bro?
ToTo. If you were to entirely omit the band name from the credits, I doubt anyone would hear the soundtrack and guess that it was recorded by ToTo. It's actually a pretty damned good epic sci-fi opus with minimal cheesed out power chord crunches that ToTo puts out there. Plus they collaborate with Brian Eno. It certainly sounds nothing like "Hold the Line" or "Africa" that's for sure. Once again, compare the soundtrack to other soundtracks of the day that were recorded by popular rock bands (customary of big budget 80's movies): Queen's soundtrack to "Highlander" and "Flash Gordon", Vangelis' soundtrack to "Chariots of Fire"...ToTo's soundtrack to "Dune" is way less dated sounding than these particular ones. And, what's wrong with a little datedness anyway? It can really be an endearing quality.
"Dune" has a great futuristic look, ridiculously cool camerawork, surreal undertones, plenty of action, colorful characters (hats off to Kenneth McMillan as Baron Harkonnen.) This movie takes you places, especially when you're baked. It is what it is. It was quite a task to bring it to the screen and even if Lynch himself is fervently unsatisfied with his efforts, he brought a killer interpretation of the novel to the screen in his own distinct, delightfully bizarre style.
