Reflections on Lynch's vision...

[Harq al-Harba]

I checked out the Dune DVD from my library last week, and watched it for the first time in about 15 years.  Watching it got me thinking about books, artistic vision and cultural context -- but especially David Lynch.

The first time I saw Dune was on video with a friend.  I had never read the books (but as I mention in another post, another friend of mine had recommended them.)  My friend thought it was somewhat interesting, but confusing.  I thought it was thought-provoking, and immediately sought out the book.  As I read the book (and continued with the sequels), I appreciated it for the complexity not only of the plot, but for its style and the level of engagement it demanded from the reader.  (this is also why GEoD remains my favorite).  I figure if a book is just about plot, I just assume read a summary.  But I got into it big time, and for about a year, various parts of the books lingered at the back of my mind in a way that few other books do.  After reading Dune, I watched the video again, and suddenly thought it was really bad....

Fast forward to last week.  As I watched the DVD (which has LOUSY extras btw - I hope the new version has better extras), two things struck me.  1) It seemed like less a continuous narrative, and more like a flashback of scenes from Dune; and 2) There is no way that anyone could really ever produce Dune on film (well, except for the recent trilogies, which are pretty much plot-driven).  You see, once the book went to any director, it became a group vision.  There is David Lynch, but there are also the set designers bringing in their visions, and the costume designers bringing their visions, and lighting, props, makeup etc.  Then there are the actors who, in this setting, bring their own visions to the larger vision.  (Is this sounding Dune-like ironically).  Ultimately, there is the audience who has read the books, who bring their own ideas about the characters and the settings, evaluating how things should or should not be.

Unlike most Grisham or Crichton books (well, at least the more recent ones) which seem written specifically to sell as a screenplay, FH's Dune works invite the reader to bring in his/her own vision.  Lynch's vision, however, is very much a vision from the 1980's.  Many of the costumes and hairstyles (even some elements of the set design) SCREAM mid-80's.  Compare the film to Hotel (the TV series), Flash Gordon (the 80' movie), Dynasty, and a lot of the budget sci-fi that came to theatres in the wake of Star Wars.  Beyond that, Lynch's own style is very eclectic, and the film is a patchwork of symbols, images and references to different points in time and different cultures.  (I am still not sure what to make of the rotating periscope/guns? that the emperor and his leaders jump on).  There is the homosexual aspects of nearly everything Harkonnen set side by side with the visceral excretions by Harkonnens, Guildsmen and nearly all who line up against Paul.  The film is shot nearly all in darkness -- even the desert scenes are either at night or close up and filtered enough to minimize sunlight.  There is a cynicism in Lynch that is so typical of the 1980's, but at the same time, counter to the idealism of the 1960's which produced not only Dune but also Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlen.

In the end, I am less critical of Lynch.  It is not Herbert's Dune, but Lynch's Dune.  I am curious to see the Director's cut in that light....

Sorry to be so long in this post, but I am curious what others think in this line of thought -- not "well, its like the book or not like the book," but rather, how do you all engage Lynch's vision?

Harq al Harba

[nemafakei]

I think that it really conveyed the technological aspect of Dune: Granted, there were some odd ideas added, but they were mostly in keeping with the odd paradox that was the Imperium after the Great Convention - a futuristic universe, yet with science in handcuffs.

The 1980's feel (much as there is to be criticised in that decade), from our current perspective: humanity trying to expand its boundaries, but hampered by technological barriers, works well.

The scenery, costume, and so on, also looked less sci-fi, and more fitting for a neo-feudal society.

I did not see Dune as optimistic, however. I see it as almost an embodiment of foreboding, the sense of terrible purpose imposed on Paul, and so on.

As to the question of whose Dune, I agree that the film was never meant to be, and could never have been a literal translation of novel to film medium, because it just wouldn't have fit. So it had to be Lync's translation.

Indeed, this is so for the same reason that it's virtually impossible to see a greek play in direct translation from greek to a modern language, performed just as it would have been in the theatre of Dionysus. The audience would barely understand, unlesss they already knew the plot, the actors would look ridiculous, and the phrasing needed to convey the same information would have been comical in of itself.

[AeonGrey]

Ahhhh...Lynch's Dune.  It has its good and its bad points.  I personally liked a lot of the atmosphere Lynch had.  It's how I pictured things when I read Dune.  Somewhat austere and dark.  I loved the stillsuits in Lynch's Dune.  Aside from that aspect, I don't really like much else about Lynch's Dune.  I won't go into it because it wouldn't be constructive.  I have respect for anyone who would attempt to bring something as complex as Dune to film.  More and more though, I agree with the original poster of this thread.  It is impossible to fully transfer everything in the book Dune to film.  There are just so many elements to it that would be difficult to capture...as you said, it's not a Michael Chrichton book.  I find that Frank Herbert has spoiled me as far as what I will and won't read now.  I can't really stand to read anything anymore that reads like a movie script.

I may catch a lot of flack for this, but I think the only format that Dune could even come close to being captured in is animation.  I don't mean CGI animation.  I think the problem is that a mainstream movie about Dune would have to appeal to a mainstream audience.  And let's face it, we're not talking about a hashed-out good vs evil story like Lord of the Rings (I realize there's more to it than that, and I'm not bashing LOTR).  I think that if a more independent animation studio were to try and capture Dune, the format would allow for some interesting things that film doesn't allow for.  Strange dream sequences...interior monologues, etc.  It'd have to be a pretty long production too...  I almost think something akin to how anime is done would work.  Not that I want it necessarily DRAWN in the style of anime...but I'm referring to the way they present their works sometimes.  A friend of mine let me borrow some DVD's of an anime called RahXephon.  They way they did it is that it was divied up into about 20-something half-hour TV episodes.  For Dune though I think maybe hour-long segments would be better.  Sorry I'm rambling...bye

[Scott]

There is no way that anyone could really ever produce Dune on film(well, except for the recent trilogies, which are pretty much plot-driven).

Thats a bold statement.

You see, once the book went to any director, it became a group vision.

[Harq al-Harba]

I am flattered that you really engaged my posting.  Thank you.  If I may respond to a few things.

Thats a bold statement.

I hadn't intended it to be so bold, but it certainly does all by itself.  What I was trying to get at is that there is so much going on withing the characters minds that it is difficult to portray that on screen.  I have always though that this sort of thing was better handled in books than on screen, and I do not feel that every book must be adapted to screen, though I understand the market forces that drive this.

True in some cases but more often then not, it is ultimately the Director's vision that is seen on film. For instance, we refer to the 1984 theatrical release of Dune,as Lynch's Dune. Maybe this is because obviously, David Lynch directed the film or maybe it was because it was his 'vision' for the world of Dune. Citing the example of Frank Herbert's Dune (the miniseries), largely debatable that it was more Herbert's then Harrison's. Hence Frank Herbert's Dune. Then again even you say it was Lynch's vision.

I would disagree here.  I realize that the director has a great deal of input on the project, but the best directors let actors act and offer advice to shape the overall vision.  Very few directors would get heavily involved in the minutae of props, lighting, costumes etc. other than as an overall, well, director.  So I would agree, Lynch's vision, but not solely and through and through his.

I think that Grisham and Crichton's works appeal to certain majority of people, as to justify their conversion into film. To a major motion picture studio, they would appear to be a bankable investment. I think any book or novel can be interpreted any which way the reader desires. I don't think its necessary to rag on Grisham or Crichton just because their works are popular.

My point perhaps could have been more clear here.  I have only read one Grisham novel, The Bretheren. I was written basically to go straight to screen (though it did not -- perhaps someone else recognized it was not a good book).  Everyone else in my family read The Firm, and commented that there was much more going on in the book than in the film, and from my limited browsing, I would go further and argue that the whole story development is more complex than, say, The Brethren.  Crichton is a better example.  Compare Congo (the book, which came out in about 1982 -- I have never seen the film) to Rising Sun.  Congo=more complexity and character development; Rising Sun=short, not very complex (not unless you count plot twists--for me these are just sleights of hand), and clearly written to be produced quickly as a film with little adjustment.  This was my case here.

It's as much Frank Herbert's Dune as it is yours or mine. After Herbert wrote the books they ceased to be his and serve a greater need to a larger group of people then just one man. Any and all novels draw upon the reader to use his or her own

[Scott]

I hadn't intended it to be so bold, but it certainly does all by itself.