‘Dune’: Moving beyond the page
Illustration by Liv Weatherord.
Ryan Humphrey, Contributing Writer
Acclaimed director Denis Villeneuve recently revealed that he views imagery in film to be more important than dialogue, which should not come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with his work. Though not everyone agrees with his artistic approach, it has genuine merit — after all, visuals and sound are what set film apart from other art forms.
It makes sense that science fiction appeals to Villeneuve — its heightened and larger-than-life imagery gives him ample opportunity to put his vision to the test. However, sci-fi is also often associated with wordy dialogue and intricate lore, making it a risky tightrope to walk for someone who jokes about hating dialogue.
Villeneuve has successfully walked this tightrope in the past with films like “Arrival” and “Blade Runner 2049,” but adapting Frank Herbert’s foundational sci-fi novel “Dune” seemed like a task he might not have been suited for.
Above all else, “Dune” is dense, featuring a large cast of complex characters navigating a meticulously detailed futuristic world. It has been called “unfilmable” — though there have been attempts, including David Lynch’s overstuffed and confusing “Dune” film that he ultimately disowned.
With the recent release of “Dune: Part Two,” Villeneuve’s adaptation of the novel is complete. Though he intends to eventually make one more film adapting the book’s sequel, it seems fair at this point to say that his adaptation was a resounding success.
It is certainly true that not every line in the pair of films will make sense on your first watch. The language and workings of the world in the year 10191 can be overwhelming, particularly given Villeneuve’s reluctance to have characters explain things.
However, would we really benefit from every detail being repeatedly explained? Villeneuve knows where better to spend the time — immersing us in a beautifully crafted world that feels real, even if we don’t always understand it. After all, we can always catch more of the details on rewatch.
With “Part One” establishing the world and the story, “Part Two” is free to commit to being a pure, wildly entertaining spectacle. Naturally, this had to do with the incredible production — the imposing sets, the blaring sound, the gorgeous visuals. The film also benefited from the choice of what to withhold from the first movie — specifically, several important characters.
It might have been more faithful for “Part One” to have Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen lurking in the background, but Austin Butler’s charismatic performance was all the more impactful because of the wait. The same goes for Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan, whose sparse scenes are some of the highlights of the film.
Both films had star-studded casts, but the sequel’s young cast is so exciting to watch that it makes an argument for a new generation of movie stars, a category that seemed to be going extinct. The Marvel Cinematic Universe produced a host of what you might call movie stars, but as Quentin Tarantino pointed out, their stardom often had more to do with the superheroes they played than the actors themselves.
“Dune: Part Two” has proven itself to be more than just a movie — it’s a cinematic experience.
Despite the focus on spectacle, the films are by no means devoid of thematic complexity. One of the most important aspects of the novel is its critique of fanaticism, and “Dune: Part Two” makes this obvious with a bleak tone that clearly emphasizes the dangers of Paul Atreides’ rise.
In a way, this dulls the immersive aspect of the story. The film’s captivating presentation comes close to converting us, the audience, into blind worshippers, but we are stopped from fully getting lost in the spell by characters like Zendaya’s Chani, who in this adaptation serves as the clear voice of dissent.
At the same time, it is hard not to be reminded of a movie like “Starship Troopers,” which was so committed to its satirical pro-war framing that audiences are still arguing about it today. Maybe it’s a good thing that “Dune: Part Two” was so blatant in its messaging, so those unfamiliar with the source material are less likely to miss the point.
Whether or not it could have used a dash more subtlety, Villeneuve’s two-part “Dune” adaptation was a success.
The films sand down the nuances and elaborate worldbuilding of the book, and in doing so they lose some of what makes “Dune” so intricate and clever. However, they succeed at doing what film does best — providing an impactful multi-sensory experience that you can share with the people around you.
These movies understand they can never replace the book. Instead, they provide an alternate way to experience a story that grows even more impactful if you delve into the supplementary lore from the book.
It might be some time before we get Villeneuve’s eventual finale to the trilogy, but I have no doubt it will be worth the wait. In the meantime, is it too early to start Rebecca Ferguson’s Oscar campaign?
