Universal Pictures
When it comes to adaptations, especially of books, faithfulness is always a topic of discussion. Many fans want faithfulness above all else, essentially exact replicas of the source material, and would consider any deviation to be insulting to the original creator. Sure, there are many examples of authors who absolutely hated the movie adaptations of their books, like Stephen King with “The Shining,” but there are also those who delighted in seeing someone else reinterpret their source material in exciting ways (like Chuck Palahniuk preferring the film version of “Fight Club” to his own novel).
Still, as easy as it is to say you enjoyed an acclaimed movie like “Fight Club,” it’s that much harder to defend a film that was critically panned and flopped at the box office. And yet, somewhat surprisingly, that was the case with legendary “Dune” creator Frank Herbert, who actually had some nice things to say about David Lynch’s long-maligned “Dune” movie (which is better than its reputation suggests).
In fact, around the time of the film’s theatrical release in 1984, Herbert told Entertainment Tonight that he appreciated much of what Lynch did with his “Dune” adaptation. “The story is there. They saved the story. It’s all there. That’s what the author worries about,” Herbert explained. “It’s a different language on that screen and if they’re adroit, and sensitive about picking their visual metaphors, the story comes off the screen.”
Moreover, there was only one moment from his original book that Hebert wished had made it into the final version of Lynch’s movie: a crucial banquet involving many of the story’s central characters. “I know why they did it. There are time restrictions and other story constrictions,” he admitted.
Frank Herbert was right: David Lynch made a good Dune movie
Universal Pictures
The banquet Herbert mentioned really is one of the best and most important developments in his original “Dune’ book. It distills the entire political landscape and subtext of the novel into a single moment, with characters throwing subtle hints about their true intentions left and right. This interaction would’ve also added a lot to the political commentary in Lynch’s film adaptation, had it been included.
To be sure, Lynch’s “Dune” has its issues. On top of lacking the political punch of Herbert’s source material, it also completely ignores the story’s themes about the danger of messianic figures. Instead, Lynch’s movie simplifies things, presenting its protagonist, Paul Atreides (Kyle MacLachlan), as a clear-cut hero who saves the day and lacks the moral ambiguity of his counterpart in Herbert’s novel.
Still, there are plenty of good things about the film, particularly its visuals. Lynch captures the weirdness of Herbert’s book and even improves on it, especially when it comes to the story’s more off-kilter characters (namely, the strange little mutant creatures known as the guild navigators). Even Herbert thought so, as he praised the work Lynch and production designer Anthony Masters did as artists on the movie. “Why wouldn’t they improve on the visual sense of the film? And they have free license to do this. This is what film is all about,” as the author put it.
Sure, Lynch was never shy about discussing how unhappy he was making “Dune,” but it remains a fascinating take on Herbert’s novel, both in terms of its visuals and how truly Lynchian it feels. It’s esoteric, dense, full of meaning, and often flat-out bizarre. It looks and feels like no other movie, just like the book does.
