Spoilers for “Dune” (2021) below.
Amidst the films whose release dates were pushed back due to COVID-19 complications, “Dune” was one of the most anticipated for myself and many sci-fi fanatics alike. The film is another adaptation of the genre defining 1965 classic written by Frank Herbet. The first novel, of which the first film is based on, is essentially a coming-of-age political sci-fi adventure that follows the gifted heir to the Atreides throne, Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet), as he travels to the dangerous desert planet of Arrakis and struggles to protect his family and his people amid a political war over an incredibly valuable resource known as “spice.”
There are also giant worms.
Out of the previous attempts to adapt “Dune” in a film or television show format, the 2021 film directed by Denis Villeneuve, who has notably directed “Blade Runner 2049” and “Arrival,” is by far the most innovative and visually interesting. While this is in part due to the wonders of modern technology, practical effects and the use of real-life sets are mostly to thank here. As someone who often prefers the use of practical effects over CGI, Villeneuve’s dedication to physical sets, alongside cinematographer Greig Fraser, notable for his work on “Rouge One,” who’s penchant for visually emphasizing the darker aspects of the original story gave “Dune” a realistic gothic quality that will make the film hard to forget.
Where “Dune” unfortunately falls short is its inability to replicate the novel’s unique use of perspective and pacing, making its two hour and thirty-minute runtime seem much longer than needed and limiting certain characters. In fairness, there are always difficulties when adapting page to silver screen regardless of how much dedication there is to the visual and auditory aspects of the film. Two hours may seem like a sufficient amount of time to fit in 400 or more pages worth of story, but when put into practice it is simply not enough. “Dune” itself poses the added challenge of translating its use of multiple perspectives onto the screen. The novel expertly flows from one character’s head to another, turning what would otherwise be incredibly flat characters into interesting multi-faceted people with their own goals and internal conflicts, allowing readers to understand them better.
The nature of film also clashes with the incredibly slow pace of the novel. The slowness of the novel was used to help build up the political, physical and spiritual world that the planet Arrakis exists in. This is unfortunate flaw in the movie simply because it is attempting to put roughly 400 pages of intense world building into a standard blockbuster timeslot. This isn’t saying it cannot be accomplished, but the main issue is which method of media is being used to adapt the story. In fact, the best adaptation of “Dune” is the 2000 series of the same name, simply because the show fully uses the episodic structure of television to fully flesh out many areas and characters of the novel.
Despite its structural setbacks, “Dune” continues to be a film that I simply cannot get off my mind. Timothee Chalemet’s portrayal of Paul was wonderfully done, Oscar Isaac was an incredibly, tragically amazing Duke Leto, and the worms practically stole the film. While those who haven’t read the novel may find it hard to follow, and fans may find the plot structure a bit frustrating at times, it is still a fantastic film that deserves to be seen by all, fremen and worm alike.
